Skip to main content
Glama

Mailbox MCP

by com.mailbox-mcp.mcp

Move emails to another folder

move_email
Destructive

Move messages from one IMAP folder to another. Flags and the original dates are preserved. All the messages must be in the SAME source folder and go to the SAME destination - to file into several folders, make one call per destination. Filing a backlog is what this tool is for: pass every UID in one call rather than calling it once per message.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesDestination folder name.
fromNoSource folder name. Defaults to INBOX.
uidsYesThe UIDs to act on, from list_emails or search_emails. Pass EVERY message you want changed in ONE call - this tool acts on the whole set in a single operation, and doing it that way costs the user one call instead of one per message. Up to 500 at a time. A single message is simply a one-element array.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that flags and original dates are preserved, and that all messages must share the same source and destination. This goes beyond what the schema and annotations convey.

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?

Four sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by preservation details, constraints, and batching guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information for correct invocation.

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?

Given the annotations and fully documented schema, the description is largely complete for a simple move operation. It covers the key constraints, preservation behavior, and batching expectations. It does not spell out return values or error cases, but no output schema exists and these are secondary for this tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining batching behavior explicitly: pass every UID in one call, and make one call per destination. This helps the agent avoid inefficient or incorrect multi-destination calls.

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 verb and resource: 'Move messages from one IMAP folder to another.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations like delete_email, flag_email, or reply_email by focusing on relocation between folders.

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?

The description gives clear context: this is for backlog filing, all UIDs must be in the same source folder, and one call per destination is required. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it gives enough operational guidance for when to use this tool and how to structure calls.

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

All Mailbox 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources