Fetch an entire Gmail thread by ID to access all messages in order for a complete conversation view.
Fetch an entire Gmail thread by ID with all messages in order.
| 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does 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 does disclose the return trait that matters most (all messages, in order), which is useful and not derivable from structured fields, but it omits the read-only nature of the operation, any permission/account prerequisites, pagination or size limits, and behavior for an invalid thread ID.
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 no filler: verb, resource, identifier, and scope. Nothing is repeated from the structured fields and nothing needs trimming.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and roughly what comes back. It leaves the returned message structure to guesswork and omits sibling differentiation, so it is adequate but with visible gaps.
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 50%: the optional email parameter is fully documented in the schema, while id is undocumented there but implicitly explained by 'by ID' in the description. That is a marginal add for the id parameter, not substantial compensation, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Specific verb (fetch) plus resource (Gmail thread) and scope (entire thread, all messages in order). It clearly tells an agent what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling gmail_get_message, which is the natural source of confusion for an agent choosing between thread-level and message-level retrieval.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. With gmail_get_message and gmail_search in the sibling list, the description should state that this retrieves a whole conversation when the thread ID is known, but it offers no routing guidance at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.