Find emails in a mailbox by applying filters for sender, recipient, subject, date range, seen, or flagged status, with a configurable result limit.
Searches for emails in a mailbox using optional filter criteria
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| seen | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| flagged | No | ||
| mailbox | No | INBOX | |
| subject | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about pagination (limit default 20, max 100), whether results are sorted, whether an empty result is returned vs an error, or what format the results take. For a read/search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, tight sentence with no wasted words. Brevity alone doesn't make it complete, but structurally it is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema. The description should compensate but does not: it never enumerates the filter fields, never explains the default INBOX mailbox or the 1-100 limit range, and never describes the return shape. Inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
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 description coverage is 0% and there are 9 parameters. The description only gestures at 'optional filter criteria' without naming a single filter (to, from, subject, since, before, seen, flagged) or explaining the mailbox default of INBOX or the limit semantics. The schema itself has no descriptions, so neither source documents the parameters.
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?
States a specific verb (Searches) and resource (emails) with scope 'in a mailbox'. However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling list-emails, which also likely retrieves emails; the difference between 'search' and 'list' is left to inference.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs list-emails or read-email. The word 'optional filter criteria' implies filters, but it never says when searching is preferable to listing, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.