local-mcp

Read Email

read_email

Read-only

Use this when the user wants the full content of an email that lives in the Mac's Apple Mail (message ID from list_emails/search_emails). For a Microsoft 365 message ID from m365_list_emails, use m365_read_email. Pass account= (and mailbox= if known, both from list_emails/search_emails) so the lookup targets one account instead of scanning all of them. Call sequentially, not in parallel — concurrent calls serialize behind Mail.app's JXA lock and later calls will time out.

Performance: body fetch is the primary latency source (avg 20s on slow IMAP). Pass include_body=false to skip it and get metadata-only (fast). Pass max_body_chars=N to cap the body at N chars after HTML stripping (default 30000; 0=unlimited). Response includes body_fetch_ms when fetch took >2s, body_omitted=true when skipped, body_truncated_at=N when cut.

When a body isn't cached on this Mac, read_email returns metadata with body_omitted=true and body_omit_reason="not_downloaded" (iCloud/IMAP optimized storage) rather than making Mail fetch it (that can be slow and tie Mail up). If the user wants it anyway, retry with force_download=true to have Mail pull the body over IMAP now and return it (waits up to ~60s). Off by default; ignored while Mail is in a cooldown.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`account`	No
`mailbox`	No
`message_id`	Yes
`include_body`	No	true
`force_download`	No	false
`max_body_chars`	No	30000

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	No
`id`	No
`to`	No
`body`	No
`date`	No
`from`	No
`unread`	No
`account`	No
`mailbox`	No
`subject`	No
`body_omitted`	No
`body_fetch_ms`	No
`body_truncated_at`	No

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and non-destructive, so the description adds value by covering performance latency, body caching behavior, body_omitted/truncated/omit_reason output fields, force_download semantics, and cooldown handling. It discloses that concurrent calls serialize and may time out, none of which is in the schema or 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?

The description is long (3 paragraphs) but information-dense with no filler; each section covers usage, performance, and edge cases. The structure mirrors parameter order and includes practical numbers (20s, 30000, 60s) that are directly useful.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to enumerate all return fields, but it still documents the conditional response fields (body_omitted, body_truncated_at, body_fetch_ms) and handles edge cases (not_downloaded, cooldown, force_download). This is comprehensive for a tool with 6 parameters, 1 required, and complex caching behavior.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema has no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but description explains every parameter's purpose and defaults: account/mailbox scoping from list_emails/search_emails, include_body=false for metadata-only, max_body_chars cap with 0=unlimited, and force_download to trigger IMAP fetch. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific use case—retrieving full email content from Apple Mail using a message ID from list_emails/search_emails—and explicitly distinguishes the sibling m365_read_email for Microsoft 365 messages. It names the resource (Apple Mail email) and a clear verb (read).

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?

It states exactly when to call (user wants full email content) and provides an explicit alternative (m365_read_email for M365). It advises passing account/mailbox to narrow lookup, warns against parallel calls due to JXA lock, and gives guidance on include_body/force_download based on caching state.

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

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.

Read Email

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources