connector_gmail_fetchFetch one Gmail resource by its native ID to retrieve a specific email, thread, or other item from your mailbox.
Fetch a single resource from Gmail by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | Native resource ID to fetch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description frames the operation as a plain retrieval ('Fetch'), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, a direct conflict in safety profile. Beyond that mismatch, the description adds no behavioral context (auth scopes, whether the fetch marks messages read, or side effects), and no output schema documents the response.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler — verb first, resource second. Appropriate size, though its brevity reflects under-specification as much as efficiency.
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?
With no output schema and no usable behavioral annotations, the description must carry more load: what a 'resource' is, where the ID comes from, and what the fetch returns are all unstated. An agent cannot confidently call this without guessing at the resource type.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Native resource ID to fetch'). The description's 'by its ID' echoes the schema without adding format, source, or accepted-ID-type detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 clear verb (fetch) and resource domain (Gmail), but 'a single resource' is vague — it never says whether the resource is a message, thread, draft, or attachment, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling connector_gmail_search beyond the singular/plural implied by 'single'.
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?
No when-to-use guidance: it never says the ID must first come from connector_gmail_search, nor when to prefer this over the search sibling. The agent has to infer the search-then-fetch workflow entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.