Local MCP

List Email Accounts

list_email_accounts

Read-only

Lists all Mail.app account NAMES (fast — cached, no Mail lock). This is the preferred way to get account names: call it first to discover them, then use list_emails(account=name) to fetch messages from a specific account. If you also need each account's email addresses or type (imap/pop/iCloud), use list_accounts instead. Each entry's permissions carries only the permissions this service has (read, send, write; a key that is missing does not apply). true: allowed in the account's boxes (LMCP's icon → My apps → open the app's row → the account's Read · Send · Write) and the item accepts it. false: turned off there, or the item is read-only (read_only: true).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tip`	No
`count`	No	Number of accounts.
`accounts`	No	Mail.app accounts, by name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / accounts / items / properties / permissions

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "read": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "send": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "write": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / accounts / items / properties / read_only

Added value: +{
+  "description": "true: the system reports this item as not modifiable. Absent when it cannot tell.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedJun 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false and openWorldHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it is cached, takes no Mail lock, and is therefore fast — a meaningful operational trait. It also explains that the `permissions` map is service-scoped and that missing keys do not apply, though it partially duplicates what the output schema could convey.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first two sentences are tightly front-loaded and high value. The trailing permissions paragraph is long, syntactically dense, and includes UI navigation instructions ('LMCP's icon → My apps → open the app's row → ...') that read like documentation for return values rather than tool selection, diluting an otherwise crisp definition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description still covers the one non-obvious semantic (permissions key presence). Nothing needed to invoke a zero-parameter read tool is missing; the excess is on the return-value side rather than a gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly does not waste space on parameter syntax.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists all Mail.app account NAMES') with a concrete scope qualifier (names only, not addresses/type). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_accounts and list_emails, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit call order ('call it first to discover them, then use list_emails(account=name)') and a clear switch condition for the alternative ('If you also need each account's email addresses or type ... use list_accounts instead'). When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all present.

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

All Local MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.