Skip to main content
Glama
AdJIa

Mail MCP Server

by AdJIa
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

mark_read

Mark email messages as read in your inbox or specified folders to manage unread email counts and organize your mailbox effectively.

Instructions

Mark email as read (seen)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folderNoFolder containing the email (default: INBOX)INBOX
message_idNoMessage ID (sequence number)
uidNoUnique ID of the message

Implementation Reference

  • src/mail_mcp/operations/flags.py:159-178 (handler)
    The core implementation of the mark_read functionality, which adds the \\Seen flag to email UIDs.
    def mark_read(self, folder: str, uids: int | list[int]) -> bool:
    """
    Mark emails as read (seen).

    Args:
        folder: Folder containing the emails
        uids: Email UID or list of UIDs

    Returns:
        True if successful

    Raises:
        EmailFlagsError: If operation fails

    Example:
        >>> flags = EmailFlags(conn)
        >>> flags.mark_read('INBOX', [1, 2, 3])
        True
    """
    return self._store_flags(folder, uids, "+FLAGS", self.FLAG_SEEN)
  • src/mail_mcp/tools/__init__.py:124-141 (registration)
    Registration of the 'mark_read' MCP tool with its input schema.
    Tool(
    name="mark_read",
    description="Mark email as read (seen)",
    inputSchema={
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
            "folder": {
                "type": "string",
                "description": "Folder containing the email (default: INBOX)",
                "default": "INBOX",
            },
            "message_id": {
                "type": "string",
                "description": "Message ID (sequence number)",
            },
            "uid": {
                "type": "string",
                "description": "Unique ID of the message",

Tool Definition Quality

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a state-changing mutation via 'Mark' but fails to disclose idempotency, return values, error handling, side effects, or permission requirements. It adds minimal context beyond the tool name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with zero wasted words. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it may be overly terse—failing to address the dual identifier system (message_id vs uid) or mutation behavior that would help an agent select and invoke the tool correctly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits crucial context such as the nature of the mutation, success/failure indicators, and guidance on the mutually exclusive identifier parameters (message_id vs uid) despite the schema's anyOf logic.

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 description contributes nothing to parameter semantics ('Mark email as read' does not explain folder, message_id, or uid). However, the input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description neither adds to nor detracts from the schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (Mark), resource (email), and target state (read/seen). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mark_unread' or 'mark_flagged' within the text itself, relying on the tool name for distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'message_id' vs 'uid', or when to prefer this over 'mark_unread'). It states only what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AdJIa/mail-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server