mails.getFetch a single email by ID, including body and attachment metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mailId | Yes | Mail ID | |
| mailboxId | Yes | Mailbox ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Mail ID | |
| body | No | Plain-text body (present on single-mail fetches) | |
| sender | Yes | Sender email address | |
| subject | Yes | Email subject | |
| expiresAt | No | Expiry timestamp (RFC 3339) | |
| receivedAt | No | Received timestamp (RFC 3339) |
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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the body/attachment-metadata scope, but does not provide further behavioral context such as error behavior or authorization needs. This is adequate but not rich.
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 that states the action, target, and relevant response content without any filler or repetition.
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 get-by-ID operation with fully documented parameters, a complete output schema, and safety annotations, the description is sufficient. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 100% and both parameters are simple strings with basic descriptions. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('a single email by ID'), and the expected content ('body and attachment metadata'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mails.list or attachments.get.
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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving one specific email when its ID is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the single-email-by-ID framing provides sufficient context to select it over listing or mutation tools.
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.
The resource namespaces make most tools easy to tell apart, and each action has a clear target. A couple of boundary cases exist, such as attachments.add versus mails.inject, since both relate to putting files on a simulated email, but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
Every tool follows the same resource.action convention, and the action verbs are predictable across the set, including delete_bulk and rotate_secret. The pattern is uniform even across different resource families, making the API very predictable.
With 40 tools, the surface is quite large for an MCP server, even though the namespaces are clean. Many singular and bulk delete variants could be combined or expressed as parameters to reduce the count, so the set feels heavier than it needs to be.
The server covers the main lifecycle needs for mailboxes, emails, attachments, archived mailboxes, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team management. Minor gaps remain, such as no mailbox update/rename, no manual archive action, and no invitation acceptance endpoint, but agents can work around these.