qq_mail_readRead an email's body and attachment metadata using its mailbox and UID from list or search results, without downloading attachments or marking it as read.
使用列表或搜索结果中的 mailbox 和 uid 读取一封邮件的正文与附件元数据，不会下载附件或标记为已读。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | 邮件 UID，必须来自列表或搜索结果 | |
| mailbox | No | INBOX |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that it will not download attachments or mark the message as read — a common ambiguity in mail clients. It stops short of describing error or pagination behavior, but the added context is real.
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 sentence that leads with the action, then the data source, then the non-effects. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly summarizes the return value (body plus attachment metadata) and the absence of side effects. A 2-parameter read tool with annotations is well covered, missing only failure/empty-result behavior.
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 coverage is only 50%: mailbox has a default but no description, and uid is already documented as needing to come from list/search results. The description compensates partly by asserting both mailbox and uid originate from list or search results, but adds no format, default, or casing details beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource — reading one QQ mail's body and attachment metadata — and scopes it to a single message, which cleanly separates it from qq_mail_list_unread and qq_mail_search that return collections. An agent can pick this tool over its siblings without opening any schema.
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?
It states that mailbox and uid must come from a list or search result, which effectively tells the agent this is a follow-up call to qq_mail_list_unread or qq_mail_search. That is clear usage context, though there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or what happens if a stale uid is supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.