Skip to main content
Glama
Leonamin

Naver Mail MCP Server

by Leonamin

list_folders

Retrieve all folder names from your Naver Mail account to organize and access emails efficiently within MCP-compatible clients.

Instructions

메일 폴더 목록 조회

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler logic for 'list_folders', which calls the mail service and formats the output.
    elif name == "list_folders":
        folder_info_list = mail_service.get_folder_list()
        folder_list = folder_info_list_to_folder_list(folder_info_list)
        import json
        content = json.dumps(
            [folder.to_dict() for folder in folder_list], ensure_ascii=False, indent=2)
        return [TextContent(type="text", text=content)]
  • server.py:100-108 (registration)
    Registration of the 'list_folders' tool in the MCP server setup.
    Tool(
        name="list_folders",
        description="메일 폴더 목록 조회",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {},
            "required": [],
        }
    ),
  • Helper method in the MailService class that retrieves the folder list from the mailbox.
    def get_folder_list(self) -> List[FolderInfo]:
        """
        IMAP 형식에 맞는 폴더를 가져옵니다.
        """
        with self._get_mailbox_client() as mailbox:
            return mailbox.folder.list()
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it's an inquiry operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single phrase ('메일 폴더 목록 조회'), which is very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could benefit from additional context to improve completeness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or usage context, which are important even for simple tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more completeness to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, as it doesn't introduce confusion or redundancy.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '메일 폴더 목록 조회' (Mail folder list inquiry) states the verb ('조회' - inquiry) and resource ('메일 폴더' - mail folders), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_mails' or 'list_mails_paginated', which also list mail-related items. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_folders' over other listing tools like 'list_mails', or any prerequisites or context for usage. This leaves the agent with no explicit or implied usage instructions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Leonamin/NaverMail-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server