Skip to main content
Glama

Claim emails to work on

claim_email
Idempotent

Take a message, or a set of them, so colleagues sharing this mailbox know you are dealing with it and nobody answers it twice. A claim is a marker the mail server keeps on the message, so every colleague's assistant on this mailbox sees it as heldBy in list_emails and search_emails, and reply_email, forward_email, draft_reply and draft_forward warn when the message is held by somebody else. It moves nothing and marks nothing read: the message stays exactly where it is, and a colleague reading the mailbox in Outlook sees nothing different. A message a mail client has moved since it was claimed keeps its marker but not the record of who: it reads as held by "someone", and force: true clears that. A message somebody else already holds is left alone and the result names them; pass force: true to take it over, and the result says whose claim was taken. Claiming a message you already hold changes nothing. Release it with release_email when you are done, or hand it to somebody with assign_email.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidsYesThe UIDs to act on, from list_emails or search_emails. Pass every message you want in ONE call: it costs the user one call instead of one per message. Up to 500 at a time.
forceNoTake over a message somebody else holds. Leave it out unless the user has said to: the result names who holds it, and the usual answer is to ask them.
mailboxNoIMAP folder the messages are in. Defaults to INBOX.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by explaining what a claim actually is (a server-side marker), that nothing moves or is marked read, that Outlook users see no difference, what happens to a stale marker after a client-side move, and how force behaves. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure. Minor gap: no mention of failure modes such as a missing uid or mailbox-level auth requirements.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then layers behavior, edge cases, and alternatives in a logical order. It is longer than typical, and a couple of sentences (the Outlook-visibility aside) are close to optional, but every sentence carries information an agent could act on.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing return behavior ('the result names them', 'the result says whose claim was taken'). Combined with force semantics, idempotency, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the outcome.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it clarifies the takeover semantics of force (the result names whose claim was taken) and the 'someone' edge case for stale claims, plus the conflict-resolution flow. It leaves mailbox semantics to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 precise verb (claim) on a specific resource (emails/messages) and clearly frames it as a shared-mailbox coordination marker. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming release_email and assign_email as the follow-up alternatives, so an agent can place it in the workflow 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('so colleagues... know you are dealing with it'), explicit when-to-release and when-to-hand-off (release_email, assign_email), and explicit guidance on the optional force flag ('Leave it out unless the user has said to'). Alternatives and exclusions are both covered.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources