Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Save Attachment

save_attachment

Saves an attachment from an email to disk. Requires confirm=true; without it you get a preview of where the file would be written. Pass account= (and mailbox= if known, both from list_emails/search_emails) so the lookup targets one account instead of scanning all of them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNo
confirmNofalse
mailboxNo
message_idYes
destinationNo~/Downloads
attachment_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
savedNo
attemptsNo
destinationNo

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which don't fully capture the write behavior. The description adds the confirm=true requirement and preview behavior, which is valuable. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on success (file created? overwritten?), or permission requirements. Since annotations are sparse, description should carry more burden – it covers the core safety but misses overwrite behavior and success/failure outcomes.

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?

Three concise sentences. Front-loads the core purpose, then explains the critical confirm flag and the account/mailbox optimization. No redundant text.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Covers the confirm safety mechanism and account scoping, which are key behaviors. But lacks edge-behavior details (what if attachment missing, overwrite rules, destination resolution). With 6 params and 0% schema descriptions, the description could do more.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains account/mailbox purpose and confirm's behavior, but message_id and attachment_name are not described beyond their names. destination is given a default in schema but the description doesn't clarify resolution or naming rules. Insufficient compensation for 0% coverage.

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?

Clearly states it saves an attachment from an email to disk. Verb+resource are specific (save, attachment), distinguishing it from file operations and email reading tools. The description also immediately clarifies the tool's core function.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly explains that confirm=true is required and provides a workflow (get account/mailbox from list_emails or search_emails). It doesn't name alternative tools, but the email-attachment context is clear enough to disambiguate from file-saving siblings. Could mention when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if just reading an attachment) but not critical.

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