himalaya-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v2.1.2
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, even those that seem similar (e.g., read_email, read_email_raw, read_email_html, render_email) are differentiated by output format and use case. No overlapping tools cause confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_folders, read_email, send_email). A few deviations like 'get_unread_count', 'health_check', and 'list_starred' break the pattern slightly but are still readable.
Tool Count4/5With 29 tools, the server is extensive but each tool addresses a specific need (folders, emails, attachments, calendar, reminders, etc.). The count is slightly high but justified given the broad scope of email management.
Completeness5/5The tool surface covers the full email lifecycle: listing, reading, searching, flagging, moving, sending, replying, threading, attachments, calendar events, reminders, and health checks. Only minor gaps (e.g., no permanent delete) but overall very thorough.
Average 3.8/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 57 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Read an email' (non-destructive) but the 'destination' parameter optionally writes a markdown file—a side effect not disclosed in the description. This omission reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action. Slightly wordy but efficient. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and description only says 'Returns structured action items' without detailing the structure. The agent cannot predict the return format, making completeness low.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the parameter descriptions are already self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read an email and extract action items', specifying the verb (read) and resource (email/action items). It distinguishes from siblings like extract_calendar_event and create_reminder. However, the tool name 'create_action_item' contradicts the description's read-only purpose, which may confuse agents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_calendar_event or create_reminder. It does not mention when not to use it or any preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (snooze until time, reappear) but omits important details: whether the email is moved to a special folder, what happens to existing snoozed emails, authorization needs, or rate limits. The sibling 'list_snoozed_emails' hints at a dedicated state, but the description does not mention it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and consequence. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or the lifecycle of snoozed emails (e.g., can they be unsnoozed early?). The sibling 'list_snoozed_emails' indicates a separate listing, but the description doesn't integrate this context. Important behavioral details are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or examples beyond the schema. It does not clarify the format of 'snoozeUntil' beyond what the schema's description already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool snoozes an email until a specified time and that it reappears. It uses a specific verb ('snooze') and resource ('email'), and the effect is described. It distinguishes from siblings like 'flag_email' or 'move_email' by focusing on temporal hiding, but could be slightly more specific about the reappearance mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or contrast with related tools like 'list_snoozed_emails' or 'move_email'. The usage context is only implied through the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or effects. The return type is mentioned but behavioral traits are lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences carrying essential information. No unnecessary words, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers purpose and return but lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency. It is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the account parameter with description. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists all email folders/mailboxes for an account and returns folder names, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_folder, delete_folder, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_emails or search_emails. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the conversion behavior for HTML and plain text emails, which adds transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose error handling, permissions, idempotency, or rate limits. With no annotations provided, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds specific handling details. No extraneous words, clearly structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic functionality but lacks details on return value structure (e.g., whether it includes headers or subject). It also does not help the agent navigate among many sibling read tools. With no output schema, more completeness would be valuable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional information about parameter semantics, such as valid ID formats or folder naming conventions. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads an email body and returns it as clean markdown, distinguishing between HTML and plain text handling. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like read_email, read_email_raw, or read_email_html, which also read emails but with different formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like read_email_raw or read_email_html. It does not mention when to prefer markdown over other formats, nor does it specify prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions returns specific fields and server-side filtering, but does not clarify read-only behavior, pagination, rate limits, or potential side effects. Minimal but acceptable for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous information. Each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and basic behavior. Lacks details on result limits or error handling, but sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (folder and account). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists flagged/starred emails and specifies the return fields (envelope with flag, subject, sender, date). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'starred' emails, but doesn't explicitly compare to list_emails or list_snoozed_emails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_emails or list_emails. The phrase 'Uses server-side filtering for fast results' hints at use for speed but doesn't specify exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create', which implies mutation but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error cases (e.g., if folder already exists). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the essential purpose. Every word is earned; there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks information on return value, error handling, or behavior on duplicate names. No output schema exists, so the description could have added value by mentioning what happens after creation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (name, account). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create) and the resource (email folder/mailbox), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_folder and list_folders by specifying the creation function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage guidance is implied by the tool name and description, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. Sibling tools are listed, but the description does not clarify when to choose create_folder over others or mention prerequisites like account existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only discloses the platform constraint 'macOS only' but does not mention any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects like notifications, or whether the Reminders app must be open. For a creation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and platform, then provides use cases. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose and basic context but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't mention return values or success indicators, which is a gap since there's no output schema. Additional context about integration with the Apple Reminders system would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it simply lists use cases without elaborating on parameter formats or defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'reminder in Apple Reminders', and the platform constraint 'macOS only'. It also specifies use cases: action items, follow-ups, and tasks extracted from email, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_action_item or create_calendar_event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Use for action items, follow-ups, and tasks extracted from email,' providing some context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., create_action_item for non-reminder tasks). No exclusions or competing tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the notable side effect of downloading all attachments even when only one is requested, but lacks details on temporary directory location, naming, cleanup, error handling, or authorization needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states main action, second explains side effect and return value. Efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basic usage and the important side effect, but omits details about the return path format, behavior if requested file is missing, and interaction with sibling tools like list_attachments.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to individual parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Download an email attachment to a temporary directory', which is a specific action on a resource (email attachment). The description distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_attachments or read_email.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need to know filename from list_attachments) or conditions to avoid using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool lists emails and returns envelope data, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or folder existence handling. The behavior is adequately described for a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return data. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description mentions return data but lacks details on pagination behavior, sorting, or default folder. With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like page_size or page affect results. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List emails in a folder' (specific verb+resource) and specifies the returned data ('subject, from, date, flags'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_emails' or 'list_threads'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many email-related sibling tools (e.g., search_emails, list_threads), usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions grouping by subject and sorting, but fails to state if the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or any limitations. This leaves gaps for the AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains return fields (participant list, message count) and sorting, but does not detail pagination behavior or the exact structure of returned threads. Given no output schema, this is somewhat incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'email threads (conversations)', and specific behaviors like grouping by subject line, sorting by most recent activity, and returning participant list and message count. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_emails and list_folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied (for listing threads), but no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like search_emails or read_thread.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool returns markdown text and mentions the YAML frontmatter fields. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects, authentication, or error handling. It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple export tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. It covers purpose and output format, but misses some behavioral context like that it does not modify the email. Given the complexity, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameters (id, folder, account). It focuses on output format rather than input details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports an email as markdown with YAML frontmatter. It uses a specific verb ('export') and resource ('email'), and the format is detailed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_email or list_emails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning the output can be saved or copied, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions downloading all attachments and parsing ICS, but does not address side effects like marking as read, failure cases, or performance implications. It partially describes the output but omits error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and no redundant information. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description appropriately lists returned fields (summary, dates, location, organizer). It covers the core functionality but lacks details on edge cases or error conditions for a tool with three parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, though it contextualizes the 'id' parameter. No added value for folder or account parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts calendar event details from an ICS attachment in an email, specifying the verb (extract), resource (ICS attachment), and steps involved. It distinguishes from siblings like create_calendar_event and read_email.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when an email has an ICS attachment to parse, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create_calendar_event or read_email. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a positive behavioral trait (server-side filter for speed) but omits mention of read-only nature, error handling, or whether counts are real-time. Adequate but lacking in safety details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Information about performance and scope is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a simple count tool. However, the ambiguity on cross-folder counting and lack of error condition details leave gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description introduces ambiguity: it says 'or across all folders' while the schema says folder defaults to INBOX, not all folders. This contradiction reduces clarity beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'number of unread emails in a folder (or across all folders)', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_emails or read_email.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use by highlighting performance ('fast counting even in large mailboxes'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare directly to alternatives like list_emails with filtering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides basic information but lacks details on side effects (e.g., what happens if target folder does not exist, whether moving to Trash is destructive) beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long with no redundant information, making it concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. However, it could mention behavior when the target folder does not exist or permissions required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds common folder examples but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Move an email to a different folder' and provides common target folders, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compose_email or delete_folder.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a usage context (cleaning up or organizing emails) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool downloads all attachments to inspect them, which is a notable side effect beyond listing. It also mentions that MIME type is inferred from extension, a limitation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is concise without unnecessary words, though the second sentence could be slightly more efficient by omitting 'to inspect them' as it's implied.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values and behavioral traits. It lacks mention of return structure (list vs. object) and error cases, but is sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description in the schema. The tool description adds overall context but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists attachments for an email message and specifies what it returns (filename, MIME type inferred from extension, size). This distinguishes it from sibling tool download_attachment, which downloads a single attachment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for inspecting attachment metadata but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like download_attachment, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it returns unsnooze times and treats past-snooze emails as expired but retrievable. This adds value beyond a simple list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words; every sentence adds meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what data is returned (emails, unsnooze times, expired status) but lacks details on output format or fields. Given no output schema, more specificity would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline for no parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all snoozed emails' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions 'unsnooze times' and expired behavior, distinguishing it from siblings like list_emails and snooze_email.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_emails or snooze_email. The description only states what it does, without providing context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it reads plain text, but does not disclose error behavior, whether it modifies anything, or limitations beyond plain text. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with clear, front-loaded action. Every word is functional.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should hint at return value. It mentions 'plain text' but doesn't specify if headers or metadata are included. Lacks detail compared to sibling 'read_email_html'. Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, each parameter has a description. The description only adds the note about using ID from list_emails. Adds marginal value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'read' and resource 'email message body (plain text)'. Distinguishes from 'read_email_html' by specifying plain text. Tells source of ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clearly states to use ID from list_emails or search_emails. Provides context for when to use this tool, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with sibling tools like read_email_html.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description explains the core behavior (reads HTML body) but does not disclose details like permissions, error handling, or return format. Adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the action but lacks details about return values or constraints. Could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb (read) and resource (email body as HTML). Distinguishes from siblings like read_email (likely plain text) and read_thread.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions 'Useful for formatted emails,' which hints at when to use this over alternatives, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions platform-specific implementations (pbcopy, xclip) and that it copies to system clipboard, but does not detail behavioral aspects like overwriting behavior, size limits, or success/failure states. Without annotations, the description provides basic transparency but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core action and platform specifics, the second provides use cases. No superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, platform, and typical use cases. It could mention return value (e.g., success boolean) but is otherwise complete. The lack of output schema reduces expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the 'text' parameter as 'Text to copy to clipboard' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this purpose but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool copies text to the system clipboard, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique clipboard functionality, and provides context by mentioning platform-specific commands and use cases like email content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description suggests when to use the tool (copying email content, markdown exports, any text) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, since no sibling tool performs clipboard operations, the guidance is sufficient and clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a draft template and does not send, which discloses its non-destructive nature. However, it does not mention if the draft is saved or just returned, nor any required permissions or rate limits. The behavioral traits are adequately but not richly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately convey purpose and critical usage constraint. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the essential action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return value (template with headers and quoted message) and the non-sending behavior. However, it could be improved by specifying the template format (e.g., plain text or HTML) or noting that it does not modify the original email.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that the body is 'prepended to quoted original'—a detail not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on each parameter beyond the schema's own descriptions. This is acceptable but not exceptional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Generate a reply draft for an email' and specifies it returns a template with headers and quoted original message. It distinctly separates this from sending by explicitly saying 'Does NOT send — use send_email to send after user reviews.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from a sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance: use this tool to create a draft and then use send_email for sending. It implies a workflow. However, it does not contrast with compose_email (another sibling for creating new emails), which could help the agent choose more precisely. Still, the explicit 'use send_email' is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes checking connectivity, but does not detail whether any state changes occur or what exactly is tested (e.g., auth, network). Adequate but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no verbose or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple health check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. Could slightly improve by mentioning what output to expect (e.g., results or logs).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with description for the sole parameter. Description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Optional. Specific account to test (default: all configured accounts)'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks 'himalaya-mcp installation health and per-account IMAP connectivity', distinguishing it from sibling email operation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use when an email tool fails to diagnose which accounts are reachable', providing clear context. No explicit when-not-to-use, but implied by diagnostic nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses key behavioral trait: preview mode without confirm. Hides nothing critical, but could detail return format and error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations. Description covers purpose and safety but lacks details on return format (preview structure), error cases, and constraints (e.g., valid recipients). Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are detailed. Description adds overall context about preview behavior but no per-parameter value beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Compose and send a new email' and explicitly distinguishes from replies. Differentiates from siblings like draft_reply and send_email.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states safety condition: requires confirm=true to send, otherwise returns preview. However, does not compare to alternatives like draft_reply or when to choose this over other email tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that tool returns preview without confirm=true and only works on macOS. Missing details on error handling or permission requirements, but core behavioral traits are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundant words. First sentence states core function, second sentence adds critical safety and platform info. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters and no output schema, description covers the most important behavioral aspect (confirm guard) and platform constraint. Could include return value hint, but adequate for a straightforward create tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's dual mode (preview vs creation) and platform constraint, which are not fully captured in schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it creates an event in Apple Calendar. Specific verb and resource. Could explicitly distinguish from extract_calendar_event, but purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides safety guideline requiring confirm=true and preview behavior. Also notes macOS-only. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but sibling tools are mostly email-related, so context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the action and flags but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether adding the 'Deleted' flag moves the email), permission requirements, rate limits, or idempotency. The description is minimal but sufficient for basic understanding; a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides actionable guidance on flag values and actions. Every sentence is justified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects. It does not describe return values (mutation tool) but that is reasonable. Optional parameters are documented in the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by listing common flags and explaining the 'action' parameter semantically (use 'add' to set, 'remove' to clear). This goes beyond the schema's enum listing. It does not cover the optional 'folder' and 'account' parameters, but the schema descriptions suffice.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: adding or removing flags on an email. It lists common flags (Seen, Flagged, Answered, Deleted, Draft) which helps the agent understand the domain. The verb 'add/remove' combined with the resource 'email' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_email or read_email.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on using 'add' versus 'remove' actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage. The brief instruction is adequate for a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool reads raw MIME and returns the full, unedited message, which implies no side effects or mutations. The description does not mention potential limitations (e.g., size restrictions), but the behavior is well-described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the action and value. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately hints at the return format (raw MIME). It fits well within the ecosystem of sibling tools, providing a clear niche. However, it could mention that the id is typically a unique identifier from the email system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters (id, folder, account) beyond what the schema provides. The parameters are self-explanatory, and no extra context is given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads the raw MIME source of an email, returning the full, unedited message with all headers. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'read_email' (processed) and 'read_email_html' (HTML version), and it lists concrete use cases (debugging, forensics, .eml export).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (debugging, forensics, exporting) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools implies that for a processed view, 'read_email' or 'read_email_html' should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses it returns messages in chronological order and implies it's a read operation. But lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage hint. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description explains returns chronological messages. Could detail the return format (e.g., fields per message), but given low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, yet description adds value by clarifying thread_id comes from list_threads output, folder defaults to INBOX, account uses default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Read all messages in a conversation thread', specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_threads (which lists threads) and read_email (single message).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides explicit guidance: 'Use list_threads first to get thread IDs', indicating prerequisite. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the critical safety mechanism (confirm flag) and preview behavior. Without annotations, this is essential. Could add permissions or consequences, but sufficient for basic safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with key information front-loaded. No redundant text, every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main behavior and all parameters. Lacks discussion of return values or errors, but acceptable for a simple deletion tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds concrete meaning: confirm must be true for deletion, account defaults if omitted. Enhances understanding beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states 'Delete an email folder/mailbox' – a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_folder and list_folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes the mandatory confirm parameter for actual deletion and the preview behavior without it. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives but provides clear safety guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains mandatory `and`/`or` placement leading to parse errors, default subject-only search, backslash escaping for spaces, and sorting options. It also enumerates filterable conditions and flag values, providing substantial operational insight. It stops short of disclosing pagination or result limits, but the disclosed behaviors are thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is verbose but every sentence contributes necessary syntax detail: condition combination, negation, escaping, defaults, sorting, and condition list. It is front-loaded with a clear opening, but the density could overwhelm readers. Still, it avoids fluff and is efficiently structured for the complexity it covers.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the query language, the description is remarkably complete: it covers all condition types, flag values, sorting, negations, escaping, and the required `and`/`or` structure. There is no output schema, so the description could ideally mention return format, but for a search tool the output is implicitly a list of emails. The tool's operational surface is extensively documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, including a comprehensive `query` parameter example. The tool description adds the full list of conditions and flag values, which are not fully enumerated in the schema. This goes beyond the schema, offering additional taxonomic clarity. The baseline of 3 is exceeded due to this extra semantic detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with a specific verb and resource ('Search emails') and immediately introduces the `himalaya filter syntax`, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like `list_emails` or `read_email`. It conveys both the action and the specialized query language, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes it evident that this tool is for searching with a specific filter syntax, implied by extensive guidance on building queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., `list_emails`) or mention any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses the preview-send duality and safety requirement. Could mention return value or side effects, but the key behavioral trait is well covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with minimal waste. First sentence provides purpose, second sentence covers critical safety and workflow. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 4 parameters, description adequately covers action, safety, and parameter details. Omits preview return format or success confirmation, but remains fairly complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains template format (MML), source (draft_reply), attachment example, confirm semantics, and account defaulting. Each parameter gains context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Send an email template' (verb+resource). Distinguishes from siblings like compose_email or draft_reply by specifying the action of sending a template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes the required confirm parameter to actually send, and instructs the agent to always show preview and get approval before sending. Provides clear when-to-use and safety workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/Data-Wise/himalaya-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server