Skip to main content
Glama
Leonamin

Naver Mail MCP Server

by Leonamin

mark_mails_important

Mark specific emails as important in your Naver Mail account to prioritize them in your inbox and ensure they receive attention during mail management.

Instructions

메일을 중요 상태로 변경

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mail_uidsYes중요 처리할 메일들의 UID 목록

Implementation Reference

  • The core logic for marking mails as important, using the imap_tools library to flag the emails.
    def mark_as_important(self, mail_uids: List[str]) -> None:
        """
        메일을 중요 상태로 변경합니다.
        중요 상태는 메일 클라이언트에서 중요 표시로 표시됩니다.
        """
        with self._get_mailbox_client() as mailbox:
            mailbox.flag(mail_uids, '\\Flagged', True)
  • server.py:239-250 (registration)
    Tool registration for mark_mails_important in the server.py file.
    Tool(
        name="mark_mails_important",
        description="메일을 중요 상태로 변경",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "mail_uids": {
                    "type": "array",
                    "items": {"type": "string"},
                    "description": "중요 처리할 메일들의 UID 목록"
                }
            },
  • Handler in server.py that orchestrates the tool call by invoking mail_service.mark_as_important.
    elif name == "mark_mails_important":
        mail_uids = args.get("mail_uids", [])
    
        if not mail_uids:
            return [TextContent(type="text", text="중요 처리할 메일 UID 목록이 필요합니다.")]
    
        mail_service.mark_as_important(mail_uids)
        return [TextContent(type="text", text=f"{len(mail_uids)}개의 메일이 중요 상태로 변경되었습니다.")]
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't reveal whether this is a reversible operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what '중요 상태' (important status) means in this system, what the tool returns, or error conditions. Given the complexity of modifying mail states, more context is needed for proper agent usage.

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%, with the parameter 'mail_uids' well-documented in the schema as '중요 처리할 메일들의 UID 목록' (list of UIDs of mails to mark important). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('중요 상태로 변경' - change to important status) and resource ('메일' - mails), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'mark_mails_unimportant' beyond the obvious opposite action, missing explicit 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 like 'mark_mails_unimportant' or 'mark_mails_read/unread'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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