List mails
mails.listRead-onlyIdempotent
List the emails in a mailbox, newest first.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mailboxId | Yes | Mailbox ID |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
MinuteMail
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds one useful behavioral trait, 'newest first', but provides no further detail about pagination, limits, or response scope.
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, front-loaded sentence states the action, object, scope, and ordering with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a one-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. Pagination or limit details would be nice but are not essential given the schema and tool complexity.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single required parameter, mailboxId. The description's phrase 'in a mailbox' reinforces the parameter's purpose but adds no new format, validation, or semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('the emails'), and a scope ('in a mailbox'), plus an ordering trait ('newest first'). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like mailboxes.list or mails.get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The basic use case is implied clearly: use this to list emails in a mailbox. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer distinctions from sibling names.
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.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The resource namespaces make most tools easy to tell apart, and each action has a clear target. A couple of boundary cases exist, such as attachments.add versus mails.inject, since both relate to putting files on a simulated email, but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Every tool follows the same resource.action convention, and the action verbs are predictable across the set, including delete_bulk and rotate_secret. The pattern is uniform even across different resource families, making the API very predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 40 tools, the surface is quite large for an MCP server, even though the namespaces are clean. Many singular and bulk delete variants could be combined or expressed as parameters to reduce the count, so the set feels heavier than it needs to be.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the main lifecycle needs for mailboxes, emails, attachments, archived mailboxes, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team management. Minor gaps remain, such as no mailbox update/rename, no manual archive action, and no invitation acceptance endpoint, but agents can work around these.