Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gws-mcp

gws-mcp

by samuel-stidham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

gmail_read

Read the decoded body of a Gmail message or the full thread by providing the message ID or thread ID and selecting the account.

Instructions

Read the decoded body of one message or a whole thread; pass exactly one id.

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": {
      "account": "<account>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountYes
thread_idNo
message_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description discloses it is a read operation ('Read the decoded body') and the one-id constraint, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or behavior when both ids are provided.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity sacrifices completeness, especially given the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Given the three parameters and missing schema descriptions, the description adequately conveys the core functionality but omits details about the required account parameter and the precise selection logic for thread_id vs message_id.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only partially explains parameters (implies thread_id for thread, message_id for message) but leaves account unexplained and does not clarify the relationship between the two optional ids.

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 clearly states the tool reads the decoded body of one message or a whole thread, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_search, gmail_send, and gmail_modify.

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?

The description advises to pass exactly one id, implying a constraint on parameter usage, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites like authentication.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools