Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
imap-mcp

imap-mcp

by LeeFlannery
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_email

Retrieve the full content of a single email from a chosen account using its message ID, without marking it as read. Ideal for accessing plain-text bodies.

Instructions

Fetch one full email (plain-text body preferred) by account + message id.

id is the value returned in list_emails/search_emails rows (IMAP UID).
Reading does not mark the message as read.

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
accountYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side-effect: 'Reading does not mark the message as read' and notes 'plain-text body preferred'. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is concise, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds specific value (id provenance and no-read side-effect). No filler or repetition.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers critical aspects: what it fetches, how to obtain the ID, and the no-mark-read behavior. It does not detail return structure but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic meaning to 'id' as an IMAP UID from list/search results. 'account' is mentioned but not elaborated, though this is intuitive given sibling list_accounts.

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 it 'Fetch one full email' by account and message id, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'full email' versus listing or searching.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly explains that the id comes from list_emails/search_emails rows, implying these tools should be used first to obtain the ID. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but provides clear contextual guidance.

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