Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
himalaya-mcp

himalaya-mcp

by Data-Wise
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_starred

Find all starred or flagged emails in your inbox or another folder. Returns envelope details including flag, subject, sender, and date via server-side filtering.

Instructions

List all flagged/starred emails. Returns envelopes with flag, subject, sender, and date. Uses server-side filtering for fast results.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_starred"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folderNoFolder name (default: INBOX)
accountNoAccount name (uses default if omitted)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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.

Conciseness5/5

Is 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.

Completeness4/5

Given 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.

Parameters3/5

Does 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.

Purpose4/5

Does 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 Guidelines2/5

Does 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools