sota-agw-mcp

Đọc email

mail_read

Read-only

Read one email by UID to retrieve its content and attachments, and surface rule warnings for ads, spoofing, or account-change requests.

Instructions

Đọc 1 email theo UID: nội dung, file đính kèm, cảnh báo luật (quảng cáo, giả mạo, đổi tài khoản…).

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": {
      "uid": "<uid>"
    },
    "name": "mail_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uid`	Yes
`folder`	No		INBOX

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond that: the tool returns rule warnings (advertisement, spoofing, account change). It says nothing about permissions, failure modes on a bad UID, or folder semantics.

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?

One compact sentence: verb and scope first, then a colon-delimited list of returned artifacts. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the tool is simple with two parameters. The remaining gap is the unmentioned 'folder' parameter and the absence of any routing guidance, minor for a read-only single-message fetch.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that 'uid' identifies the single email to fetch, but the 'folder' parameter (default INBOX) is not mentioned at all, leaving half the parameters without semantic guidance anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Đọc 1 email theo UID') and lists what the caller gets back (content, attachments, rule warnings). That is enough to tell it apart from a listing tool like mail_list_recent, though it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: 'theo UID' signals that the caller must already have a message identifier, which indirectly points to mail_list_recent as the way to obtain one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as mail_attachment_text for attachment-specific extraction.

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

Deploy Server