Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
himalaya-mcp

himalaya-mcp

by Data-Wise
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_threads

Groups emails using the same subject into ordered threads with participant lists and message counts. Sort by most recent activity per folder, with pagination and configurable page size.

Instructions

List email threads (conversations) in a folder. Groups related emails by subject line. Returns threads sorted by most recent activity, with participant list and message count.

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_threads"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number for pagination
folderNoFolder name (default: INBOX)
accountNoAccount name (uses default if omitted)
page_sizeNoNumber of emails to fetch for grouping (default: 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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.

Conciseness5/5

Is 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.

Completeness3/5

Given 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.

Parameters3/5

Does 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.

Purpose5/5

Does 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 Guidelines3/5

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. 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools