Skip to main content
Glama

Gmail

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Gmail Get Message

gmail_get_message
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full email details by message ID. Returns headers, subject, body text, sender, recipients, attachments, and applied labels.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoFormat of the returned message (default: full)
message_idYesThe ID of the message to retrieve

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoMessage ID
errorNoError code if connection not authenticated
messageNoError message if connection not authenticated
payloadNoMessage structure and content
snippetNoShort plain text snippet of message body
labelIdsNoApplied label IDs
threadIdNoThread ID
historyIdNoHistory ID of message
internalDateNoInternal date timestamp in milliseconds
sizeEstimateNoEstimated message size in bytes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error code if connection not authenticated",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "historyId": {
+      "description": "History ID of message",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Message ID",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "internalDate": {
+      "description": "Internal date timestamp in milliseconds",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "labelIds": {
+      "description": "Applied label IDs",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Error message if connection not authenticated",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "payload": {
+      "description": "Message structure and content",
+      "properties": {
+        "body": {
+          "description": "Message body",
+          "properties": {
+            "data": {
+              "description": "Base64url encoded body text",
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "size": {
+              "description": "Body size in bytes",
+              "type": "number"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "headers": {
+          "description": "Email headers",
+          "items": {
+            "properties": {
+              "name": {
+                "description": "Header name",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "value": {
+                "description": "Header value",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "parts": {
+          "description": "Message parts for multipart messages",
+          "items": {
+            "properties": {
+              "filename": {
+                "description": "Attachment filename",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "mimeType": {
+                "description": "MIME type",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "sizeEstimate": {
+      "description": "Estimated message size in bytes",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "snippet": {
+      "description": "Short plain text snippet of message body",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "threadId": {
+      "description": "Thread ID",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "message_id": "18c1b1f187221e2d"
+  },
+  {
+    "format": "full",
+    "message_id": "18c1b1f187221e2d"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying what is returned (headers, body, labels, etc.), which is not covered by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence that front-loads the action and lists return contents. No filler words; every part earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With output schema present, description does not need to detail return values. All necessary context (what it does, what it returns) is covered. No gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and includes descriptions for both parameters (message_id and format with enum). The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Fetch full email details by message ID' and enumerates returned components (headers, subject, body, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like gmail_list_messages which lists messages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gmail_search, gmail_list_messages). Agent must infer that it requires a known message ID.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Gmail toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap among tools, particularly within the Pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the Polymarket family (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). These tools have similar purposes, making it hard for an agent to distinguish them at a glance. The Gmail tools are a small, distinct cluster, but the overall set is confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the verb_noun pattern is inconsistent. Many start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, etc.), but some use noun_verb (bet_research), noun_noun (entity_profile), or adjective_noun (deep_research). This mixed pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the count is high, but the server name 'Gmail' suggests a focused email service. Only 5 tools are Gmail-related, while the rest cover a vast, unrelated domain (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.). This mismatch makes the tool count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the Gmail domain, the tool surface is incomplete (e.g., missing delete, archive, modify labels). For the broader Pipeworx/Polymarket domain, the tools are extensive but lack clarity in coverage. The server attempts to cover too many domains without sufficient depth in any, leading to notable gaps.

Resources