Full message history for ONE thread. Input: threadId (from inbox). Returns { threadId, campaignId, leadId, leadEmail, mailboxEmail (null before first send), messages[] }, each message { type (sent/reply/bounce/...), ts, messageId, metadata }, oldest first. 404 if unknown. Use inbox to LIST threads; reply to respond; mark/label_thread to triage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threadId | Yes | The thread id, e.g. from inbox() or campaign events. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavioral details: returns oldest first, mailboxEmail null before first send, and 404 behavior. This adds value beyond annotations.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose, then return structure, then usage guidelines. Every sentence is necessary and efficient, no fluff.
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?
Given no output schema, description provides full return structure and field details. Covers edge case (404) and input source. Sibling tools are referenced. Complete for a simple read tool.
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 description for threadId. Description adds that threadId comes from inbox, providing context beyond schema for a single parameter.
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?
Description clearly states 'Full message history for ONE thread' with a specific verb (get history) and resource (thread). It distinguishes from siblings by directing to use 'inbox' for listing, 'reply' for responding, etc.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use inbox to LIST threads; reply to respond; mark/label_thread to triage.' Also mentions 404 for unknown threads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but pause/pause_all and metrics/campaign_results/list_campaigns have overlapping scopes. Descriptions clarify the differences, so ambiguity is low.
Uses snake_case with a mix of verb_noun (list_campaigns) and noun_verb (infrastructure_status), but patterns are predictable. Minor inconsistency between setup_infrastructure and infrastructure_status.
25 tools is at the upper bound for a focused server, but the domain (cold email automation) justifies the number. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the workflow.
Covers account management, campaigns, leads, threads, infrastructure, webhooks, and dashboards. Missing resume for paused campaigns and delete for campaigns, but core operations are present.