Find emails matching a query and return thread summaries as JSON. Supports filters for sender, subject, date range, and tags.
Search mail. Returns thread summaries as JSON. Query syntax is notmuch: from: to: subject: tag: folder: date:2026-01-01..2026-06-30, combined with and/or/not.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| include_excluded | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the only behavioral indicator. It implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or rate limits.
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?
The description is brief and information-dense, including the query syntax in one sentence. No unnecessary words or redundant details.
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?
The description lacks explanations for parameters and output format beyond 'JSON'. It does not cover error handling, pagination, or parameter constraints, leaving many operational details unspecified.
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 the description does not explain any of the five parameters (limit, query, offset, account, include_excluded). This leaves the agent without guidance on how to set them.
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 clearly states the tool searches mail and returns thread summaries as JSON, providing a specific verb and resource. It also gives the query syntax, making the purpose unmistakable.
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?
The description provides query syntax but does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings like 'thread' or 'text'. No alternative guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.