proton-bridge-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Forward

forward

Destructive

Relay an existing email to a specified recipient after user confirmation. Optionally add a note and preview with dry-run before sending.

Instructions

Forward an existing message to someone on demand. GATED like send: confirm recipient with the user, then call with confirmed=true.

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": {
      "uid": "<uid>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "confirmed": "<confirmed>"
    },
    "name": "forward"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes
`uid`	Yes
`note`	No	Optional note added above the forwarded content.
`folder`	No	Default INBOX.
`dry_run`	No	Preview exactly what would happen and change nothing. Needs no confirmation.
`confirmed`	Yes
`uidvalidity`	No	UIDVALIDITY reported alongside the uid. Pass it back so a mailbox resync cannot make this act on the wrong message.
`from_address`	No	Override the From address (use your alias-owner address when forwarding via an alias reverse-address).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-readOnly), the description discloses the confirmation gate and the need for confirmed=true, which is not implicit in the schema. It stops short of detailing other side effects, but the annotations cover the destructive nature.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains zero filler or redundant information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and a destructive action, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the core action and gating but leaves out guidance on constructing uid or the overall flow, relying heavily on the schema for the rest.

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 adds meaning to 'to' (recipient) and 'confirmed' (gating), but a required parameter like 'uid' remains undescribed in both schema and description. Schema coverage is moderate (63%), and the description only partially compensates.

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 specific action ('Forward an existing message to someone on demand') with a distinct verb and resource, setting it apart from sibling tools like send, reply, or create_draft.

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?

It provides explicit context that this is an on-demand action and includes a gating mechanism ('GATED like send: confirm recipient with the user, then call with confirmed=true'), but does not explicitly list exclusions or when to prefer alternatives.

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