DragApp MCP Server

get_thread

Retrieve a single email message by ID, returning HTML body, plain text, sender, recipients, attachments, and reply-to info for composing a response.

Instructions

Get a single email message by ID. Returns the HTML body (and a plain-text version), sender, recipients, attachments, and reply-to info for composing a response. You can pass either messageId or threadId — they are the same value.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "boardId": "<boardId>"
    },
    "name": "get_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`boardId`	Yes	The board ID the message belongs to
`threadId`	No	Alias for messageId — use either one (they are interchangeable)
`messageId`	No	The message/thread ID to retrieve (same value used for both)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values (HTML body, plain text, etc.) and clarifies that messageId and threadId are interchangeable. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no superfluous words. Front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence is meaningful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the purpose, return fields, and parameter nuances. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains what is returned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that messageId and threadId are 'the same value', which is an improvement over the schema's aliased descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'Get a single email message by ID', uses a specific verb and resource, and lists the returned components (HTML body, plain text, sender, recipients, attachments, reply-to), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_threads or search_threads.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'for composing a response', which implies a use case, but does not contrast with siblings like get_comment or search_threads.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.