himalaya-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

export_to_markdown

Export an email as formatted Markdown with YAML frontmatter (date, sender, recipients, subject, flags) and return the text for saving to a file or clipboard.

Instructions

Export an email as formatted markdown with YAML frontmatter (date, from, to, subject, flags). Returns the markdown text — you can then save it to a file or clipboard.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "export_to_markdown"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Email message ID
`folder`	No	Folder name (default: INBOX)
`account`	No	Account name (uses default if omitted)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.2.2Nov 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / id / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "integer"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / id / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

First observedv1.7.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing the output shape: formatted markdown plus a YAML frontmatter block with enumerated fields, returned as text rather than written anywhere. It does not confirm read-only/non-destructive behavior explicitly, nor anything about size limits, inline images, or attachment references that an export tool would commonly face.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first defines the output format, the second defines the return value and a follow-on action. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the clipboard/file clause is slightly filler given copy_to_clipboard exists as its own tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters most: the exact returned artifact and its frontmatter fields. Completeness is only slightly short on edge behavior (attachments, empty bodies, permission failures).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (id, folder, account) including defaults, so the schema carries parameter semantics fully. The description adds nothing about the id format or how folder/account selection interacts with the export, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export an email as formatted markdown') plus the exact artifact produced (YAML frontmatter with date, from, to, subject, flags). This differentiates it from plain readers like read_email or read_email_raw by implying format conversion, though it doesn't name those siblings directly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'you can then save it to a file or clipboard' implies an archival/offline use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over read_email, read_email_html, read_email_raw, or render_email. No exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., permission or attachment handling) are stated.

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