Read the Gmail vacation responder to check whether out-of-office auto-reply is enabled, along with its date range, subject, and message.
Read the vacation responder (out-of-office auto-reply): on/off, first/last day, subject, message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation and the field list clarifies what is retrieved, but permissions, error behavior, and confirmation that no settings are changed are not stated.
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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the key action and followed by the returned fields. Every part earns its place with no repetition or filler.
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?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return contents by listing on/off, dates, subject, and message. It is nearly complete, though it omits account/permission context that could matter for Gmail vacation settings.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics receive the baseline 4. There is no parameter information to add, and the empty schema is consistent with the description.
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 ('Read') and resource ('vacation responder') and enumerates the exact fields returned: on/off, first/last day, subject, and message. The read-only framing also implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling gmail_set_vacation, which handles changes.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Read the vacation responder': call it when current out-of-office settings are needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no direct routing to gmail_set_vacation for modifying the responder.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.