Retrieve the full email thread around a specific message, filtering out junk and trash by default. Optionally include excluded messages to see the complete conversation.
Show the whole thread containing a message. Excludes junk/trash replies by default; set include_excluded to include them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | 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?
It discloses a key behavioral aspect — that junk/trash replies are excluded by default and that setting include_excluded includes them. This goes beyond the bare minimum, though it does not cover other behaviors like pagination limits or error handling, but given the absence of annotations, this is reasonably transparent.
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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding the key behavioral nuance. No verbose or redundant phrasing.
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 should clarify what the response contains or what constitutes a 'whole thread'. It does not. It also does not explain how 'id' identifies the message or whether related attachments are included. This is adequate for a simple tool but leaves room for interpretation.
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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the include_excluded parameter; 'id', 'limit', and 'offset' are left unexplained. 'id' is required and its purpose (presumably a message ID) is only implied, while limit/offset are not mentioned at all, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 it shows the whole thread containing a message, with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('thread'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'files' and 'folders', though 'show' is a sibling that could overlap in purpose, but the context of 'thread' makes it clear enough.
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 explains the default behavior (excluding junk/trash replies) and how to override it with include_excluded, which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like 'show' or 'search', nor does it specify when to use this tool versus another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.