Fetch a single Gmail message by ID, returning headers and decoded text body. Use it to read one email's content when you have the message ID.
Fetch a single Gmail message by ID with headers and decoded text body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| No | Google account email. May be omitted when exactly one account is configured; required when multiple accounts are configured. | ||
| format | No | Default 'full' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully says the response includes headers and decoded text body, but omits authentication/account requirements, error behavior, and how the format parameter changes output.
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 that states the verb, resource, identifier, and return content without wasted words.
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?
No output schema or annotations exist, so the description should carry more context. It gives some return information, but does not explain account selection, format effects, or permission requirements for a read tool with three parameters.
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 coverage is 67%, with the schema describing email and format. The description covers the required id parameter but adds no semantics for email or format, so it does not materially compensate for the remaining gap.
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?
The description states a specific verb (Fetch), resource (single Gmail message), identifier (by ID), and returned content (headers and decoded text body). It implicitly distinguishes 'message' from siblings like gmail_get_thread or gmail_get_draft, but does not explicitly name alternatives or boundaries.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you have a message ID and need the message content. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing, such as when to prefer gmail_get_thread or gmail_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.