email

Search inbound emails

searchEmails

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when you need to find inbound emails with structured filters or full-text matching. Use sort=received_at_asc plus date_from for new-mail polling.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No	Full-text query matched across subject, body, sender, and recipient.
`to`	No	Filter to emails addressed to this recipient.
`body`	No	Filter to emails whose body contains this string.
`from`	No	Filter to emails from this sender address or domain.
`sort`	No	Sort order. Use received_at_asc with date_from for polling new mail.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of emails to return (1–100, default 50).
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor from a previous response's `meta.cursor` field.
`status`	No	Filter to emails in this processing status.
`date_to`	No	Inclusive upper bound on received_at (ISO 8601).
`snippet`	No	Include a short body snippet in each result (default true).	true
`subject`	No	Filter to emails whose subject contains this string.
`date_from`	No	Inclusive lower bound on received_at (ISO 8601).
`domain_id`	No	Filter to emails received on a specific verified domain.
`spam_score_lt`	No	Filter to emails with a spam score strictly below this value.
`has_attachment`	No	Filter to emails that have ("true") or lack ("false") attachments.
`include_facets`	No	Include aggregated facet counts (sender, domain, status) in the response (default true).	true
`spam_score_gte`	No	Filter to emails with a spam score at or above this value.
`reply_to_sent_email_id`	No	Filter to inbound emails that are replies to a specific sent email ID.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`tool`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`statusText`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by providing the polling pattern and indicating that the tool supports both structured filters and full-text matching. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first explains the tool's purpose and capabilities, the second provides a specific usage pattern. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has 18 parameters and an output schema, all documented. The description covers the main use case and polling pattern. It could mention pagination or default behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a search 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra guidance on combining sort and date_from for polling, which is a valuable usage hint. This justifies a score of 4.

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 inbound emails with structured filters or full-text matching, distinguishing it from siblings like listEmails and getEmail. The specific verb 'search' and resource 'inbound emails' make the purpose 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 description provides a clear when-to-use scenario and a specific polling pattern (sort=received_at_asc plus date_from). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the context of sibling tools implies simpler alternatives.

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

All email 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: domain management (addDomain, verifyDomain), sending (sendEmail, replyToEmail), receiving (getEmail, listEmails), webhooks (createEndpoint, listWebhookDeliveries), status (getAccount, getInboxStatus), etc. There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as listDomains, createFilter, downloadEmailAttachments, and getSentEmail. The verbs (get, list, create, delete, send, reply, etc.) are used predictably, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

29 tools is slightly on the high side but still reasonable for an email server covering domains, sending, receiving, webhooks, filters, and status. Each tool serves a specific purpose and earns its place, though some consolidation might be possible.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core email workflows: domain setup (add, verify, list), sending/receiving, threading, webhook lifecycle, and filtering. Minor gaps exist, such as missing deleteDomain or updateEndpoint, but the surface is largely complete for the intended domain.

Resources

Need Help?