support-inbox-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gmail_threads_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Gmail thread by ID to read all messages in a support conversation, with options to control format, metadata headers, and user account.

Instructions

Read a Gmail thread.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_threads_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The unique ID of the Gmail thread to retrieve.
`format`	No	The format to return the messages in.
`userId`	No	The user's email address. The special value 'me' can be used to indicate the authenticated user.	me
`metadataHeaders`	No	When format is 'METADATA', only include these headers in the response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note on auth requirements, what a 'thread' contains, or how format affects the response—so it does not enrich the behavioral picture.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema documents all four parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It would be stronger if it hinted at the format options or return structure, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter (id, format, userId, metadataHeaders) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a Gmail thread'), which cleanly separates it from the list-oriented sibling gmail_threads_list. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with gmail_threads_list or gmail_messages_list, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus gmail_threads_list or gmail_messages_list, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the required 'id' parameter.

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