MCP Emails

Get Signature

signature_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the email signature configured for an inbox. Returns the signature HTML and plain text, whether it is enabled, the reply/forward mode ('always' | 'first_only' | 'never'), its source ('manual', 'gmail_import', or null when none is set), and sender_name, the display name recipients see in the From header (null when unset). The signature is appended server-side on send/reply/forward/draft/scheduled messages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inbox`	No	Inbox email address, an alternative to inbox_id.
`inbox_id`	No	Inbox UUID from inbox_list. Optional when the key has one inbox; pass this or `inbox`, not both — a pair naming different mailboxes is refused.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Server notes about how this call was handled — for example an argument that was not applied because the selected action does not accept it. Written by MCP Emails, not taken from any message, and absent when there is nothing to report.
`inbox_id`	No
`sender_name`	No
`email_address`	No
`signature_enabled`	No
`signature_reply_mode`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / inbox_id / description

Previous value: -"Inbox UUID from inbox_list. Optional when the key has one inbox; pass this or `inbox`, not both."New value: +"Inbox UUID from inbox_list. Optional when the key has one inbox; pass this or `inbox`, not both — a pair naming different mailboxes is refused."

AddedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the signature is appended server-side on send/reply/forward/draft/scheduled messages, and clarifies the source and sender_name fields. This goes beyond annotation coverage.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then details return values and behavior. No wasted words.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description explicitly enumerates all return fields and explains server-side behavior. It is fully self-contained for an agent to understand what it will get and how it works.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema covers both parameters at 100% including the mutual exclusivity note. The description adds no new parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it reads the email signature for an inbox and lists all return fields, distinguishing it from the sibling signature_set tool. Verb 'Read' plus resource 'email signature' is specific and unambiguous.

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 read-only nature and the explicit mention of server-side appending provide clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly contrast with signature_set, but the purpose is self-evident and no exclusions are needed.

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

All MCP Emails tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.