local-mcp

Search Emails

search_emails

Read-only

Use this when the user wants to find specific emails on this Mac (Apple Mail — any account added to Mail.app). Searches subject and sender by default; pass scope="body" or scope="all" to also search the message body (see search_coverage in the response — a body search can be partial while its local index is still building). For a Microsoft 365 mailbox NOT added to Mail.app, use m365_search_emails.

IMPORTANT: on machines with 2+ accounts, call with account= (from list_email_accounts). Without it, and when the fast index can't answer, search_emails returns the account list instead of scanning all of them — scanning every account in one call has no time limit and can block Mail for other requests too. Exactly 1 account is unaffected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No		20
`query`	Yes
`scope`	No	"metadata" (default, subject+sender — fast, unchanged behavior), "body" (message body only, via a local index — see search_coverage in the response), or "all" (subject+sender+body).	metadata
`account`	No
`mailbox`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`query`	No
`results`	No
`warnings`	No
`next_actions`	No
`search_scope`	No
`search_backend`	No
`search_coverage`	No
`omitted_mailboxes`	No

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavior: body search may be partial during index build, multi-account calls without account may return the account list, and scanning all accounts can block Mail. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded: primary use case first, alternative second, then a focused warning. Every sentence carries distinct information, and the IMPORTANT warning is clearly structured.

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?

For a search tool with an output schema, the description covers use case, alternatives, scope edge cases, and a blocking-risk warning. It omits semantics for the mailbox parameter, which is a minor gap given the otherwise strong context.

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?

Schema coverage is only 20%, but the description compensates for the most important parameters: scope meanings and account usage for multi-account setups. It also clarifies that body search coverage is reflected in search_coverage. However, mailbox and limit are left undocumented.

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 the tool finds specific emails on this Mac via Apple Mail, with a specific verb and resource. It also names the sibling alternative m365_search_emails for mailboxes not in Mail.app, which distinguishes it from related tools.

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 explicitly says when to use it (user wants to find specific emails in Mail.app) and when not to (Microsoft 365 mailbox not in Mail.app → m365_search_emails). It also provides account-selection guidance for multi-account machines.

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.

Search Emails

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources