Retrieve a full email by its UID, with body, headers, and attachments, from a specified folder. Optionally mark it as read.
UID numarası verilen belirli bir e-postayı gövdesi, ek bilgileri ve başlıklarıyla eksiksiz okur.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | Okunacak e-postanın UID numarası | |
| folder | No | E-postanın bulunduğu klasör (Varsayılan: 'INBOX') | |
| markAsSeen | No | E-posta okundu olarak işaretlensin mi? (Varsayılan: true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is read, but omits the important side effect that markAsSeen defaults to true, meaning reading can mutate the email's seen status. It also doesn't mention auth requirements or return behavior.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the phrase 'ek bilgileri' (additional info) is somewhat vague.
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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It defines the read scope, but misses the seen-flag side effect and expected return structure, which the schema alone does not fully replace.
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 100%, with each parameter described including defaults for folder and markAsSeen. The description adds 'body, additional info, headers' as read content, but does not materially extend parameter understanding 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 action and resource: reads a specific email by UID, including body, additional info, and headers. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling list/search tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus check_inbox, search_emails, or other siblings. The description implies use when a UID is already known, but it doesn't state this or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.