google_gmail_threads_listList Gmail conversation threads newest first, with an optional search query to filter by sender, date, or keyword.
List conversation threads, newest first, with an optional Gmail search query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Gmail search query (e.g. from:bob, newer_than:2d). | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| maxResults | No | Max threads (default 25). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.60Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first') but says nothing about pagination, auth/account requirements, rate limits, or what a returned thread contains beyond the schema's maxResults default.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and ordering and tacks the optional filter on at the end. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits pagination behavior and any indication of what a thread object returns, which are the main things an agent needs to iterate correctly. The core facts it does state are accurate but not sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query syntax, account nickname, and the maxResults default/limits. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List conversation threads') and adds scope ('newest first, with an optional Gmail search query'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the message-level google_gmail_list, but never names that sibling or google_gmail_threads_get, so the agent must infer the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage cue is 'optional Gmail search query', which hints at filtering but gives no when-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to pick thread listing over google_gmail_list or google_gmail_threads_get.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.