Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

List Accounts

list_accounts
Read-only

Lists Mail.app email accounts WITH each account's email addresses, server_name and type. type is whatever Mail reports — imap | pop | iCloud | smtp | unknown — and Mail's scripting dictionary has NO Exchange value, so Exchange (EWS) accounts always come back as unknown, flagged with type_undetermined: true and a type_note; for those read the mailbox through the m365_* tools (or outlook_diagnose) instead of routing by type. Slower — queries Mail directly. For just the account NAMES (to pass to list_emails(account=...)), prefer list_email_accounts: it's faster (cached, no Mail lock).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoPresent when some account's type could not be determined: how many, and what to do.
countYes
accountsYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the tool is slower because it queries Mail directly (potential Mail lock), the type field's possible values including unknown, and the critical caveat that Exchange accounts always return as unknown with type_undetermined and type_note fields. This is rich, non-obvious context that helps an agent predict behavior.

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?

The description is compact, with every sentence serving a distinct purpose: core function, type values and Exchange caveat, performance warning, and pointer to the faster sibling. It front-loads the main function and keeps the caveats organized without redundancy.

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?

For a read-only, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential context: what is returned, the type field semantics, the Exchange edge case, the performance trade-off, and the correct alternative for name-only usage. An agent would have complete information to decide when to call this vs. list_email_accounts.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about input semantics. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return semantics instead, which is helpful.

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 explicitly states the verb and resource ('Lists Mail.app email accounts') and enumerates the specific fields returned (email addresses, server_name, type). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling tool list_email_accounts by describing what it provides beyond names, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance by stating that list_email_accounts is faster and should be preferred for just names, and that Exchange (EWS) accounts should be handled via m365_* tools or outlook_diagnose instead of routing by type. This directly addresses alternatives and conditions.

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

All local-mcp 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.

Completeness3/5

For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.

Resources