list_emailsList the most recent messages in a mailbox, newest first. Returns summaries only, not message bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many messages to return. Defaults to 25. | |
| mailbox | No | IMAP folder name. Defaults to INBOX. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns only summaries, not bodies, and orders results newest first. No contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the key limiting behavior ('summaries only, not message bodies') is stated directly and economically.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with zero required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it covers ordering, scope, and output limitation. A minor gap is not explicitly differentiating from search_emails, but the recency framing provides enough directional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both limit and mailbox are already fully documented with types, defaults, and bounds. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'in a mailbox', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('messages in a mailbox') and adds meaningful scope details: 'most recent', 'newest first', and 'summaries only'. The final clause distinguishes it from read_email by explicitly saying it does not return message bodies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes it clear when this tool fits: when you need a recent, read-only overview of messages. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_emails for filtered/full-text searches, nor does it state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct actions, but there are several close pairs that require careful reading: check_bounces vs check_receipts, list_emails vs search_emails, and the send/reply/forward vs draft_email/draft_reply/draft_forward families. The descriptions are strong enough that a careful agent can disambiguate, but the boundaries are not always obvious from the tool names alone.
Every tool uses a consistent snake_case verb_noun convention, such as check_bounces, list_mailboxes, send_email, and update_draft. Related operations use parallel forms like mark_read/mark_unread and flag_email/unflag_email, making the naming predictable and coherent.
With 28 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where a tool set starts to feel too heavy. Email is a broad domain and many tools are individually justified, but the surface could be consolidated, especially the draft_forward/draft_reply/draft_email and send_email/reply_email/forward_email variants.
The core email lifecycle is thoroughly covered: send, read, search, move, delete, drafts, replies, forwards, folders, flags, attachments, upload links, contacts, identities, deliverability, bounces, and receipts. The main gap is that permanent deletion is referenced as a separate operation but no such tool is actually provided, and contact/identity management is effectively read-only.