apple-mail-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_thread

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve summaries of all messages in a conversation containing a specified message, oldest first and without bodies, to review thread context without changing anything.

Instructions

Returns summaries of the messages in the conversation that contains the given message (up to the limit, oldest first), without bodies. Changes nothing.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`hasMore`	Yes
`messages`	Yes
`threadId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0Nov 5, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / messages / items / properties / reminder
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / messages / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "link",
-  "subject",
-  "from",
-  "to",
-  "cc",
-  "recipientCount",
-  "date",
-  "mailboxes",
-  "unread",
-  "flagged",
-  "attachmentNames",
-  "attachmentCount",
-  "threadId",
-  "bodyLocal",
-  "category",
-  "important"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "link",
+  "subject",
+  "from",
+  "to",
+  "cc",
+  "recipientCount",
+  "date",
+  "mailboxes",
+  "unread",
+  "flagged",
+  "attachmentNames",
+  "attachmentCount",
+  "threadId",
+  "bodyLocal",
+  "category",
+  "important",
+  "reminder"
+]

First observedv0.2.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so "Changes nothing" is largely redundant. The description earns credit for behavior annotations don't cover: results are summaries with bodies stripped, returned oldest first, and capped by the limit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the return content and shape come first, the ordering and cap parenthetical next, and the safety note last. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, the description need not document return structure, and for a two-parameter read tool it covers what the agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain: whether the referenced message itself is included in the summaries, and what happens for an unknown or non-existent id.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain both parameters in prose: the id is the message whose containing conversation is fetched, and limit caps how many message summaries come back. However, it omits that id must be a numeric string and that limit defaults to 50 with a 1-100 range, which the schema only conveys structurally.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Returns summaries of the messages in the conversation") plus the key scoping rule that the thread is the one containing the given message. "Without bodies" implicitly contrasts it with get_message, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource framing: reach for this when you have a message id and want the surrounding conversation rather than a single full message. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to search_messages or get_message as alternatives, leaving routing to inference.

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

Deploy Server