himalaya-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_email_html

Read an email message body as HTML to preserve formatting in newsletters and styled emails. Provide the message ID, with optional folder and account parameters.

Instructions

Read an email message body as HTML. Useful for formatted emails.

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": "read_email_html"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the body is returned as HTML and that the operation is a read, but it does not cover sanitization, permissions, side effects, or response shape beyond format.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted wording. The format and use case are stated efficiently.

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 read tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource and return format. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with read_email_raw or render_email, but no critical information is missing.

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%, so the id, folder, and account parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: read an email message body as HTML. It clearly states the format, distinguishing it from a raw-body read, but it does not name or differentiate against siblings like read_email or render_email.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'Useful for formatted emails' implies the condition for choosing this tool over a plain-text reader, but it gives no explicit when-not guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives.

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