Email MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_mailboxes

Read-only

Retrieve all mailbox folders for a given account, including unread counts and special-use flags. Use the account name obtained from list_accounts.

Instructions

List all mailbox folders for an account with unread counts and special-use flags. Use list_accounts first to get the account name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account": "<account>"
    },
    "name": "list_mailboxes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	Yes	Account name from list_accounts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.3Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns unread counts and special-use flags, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, or system folders. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a clear prerequisite. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. The description adequately explains what the tool returns (unread counts and special-use flags) and the prerequisite step (list_accounts). Given the low complexity and good annotations, the description is complete for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with the 'account' parameter already described as 'Account name from list_accounts'. The description reinforces this by telling the user to use list_accounts first, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'List all mailbox folders' with the specific resource (mailbox folders) and additional detail about unread counts and special-use flags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts or list_labels, which target different resources.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use list_accounts first to get the account name.' This gives a clear prerequisite and suggests the intended workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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