Skip to main content
Glama
Leonamin

Naver Mail MCP Server

by Leonamin

mark_mails_read

Mark emails as read in your Naver Mail account by specifying their UIDs. This tool helps manage your inbox by updating email status to read.

Instructions

메일을 읽음 상태로 변경

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mail_uidsYes읽음 처리할 메일들의 UID 목록

Implementation Reference

  • The core logic for marking mails as read using IMAP flag '\Seen'.
    def mark_as_read(self, mail_uids: List[str]) -> None:
        """
        메일을 읽음 상태로 변경합니다.
        """
        with self._get_mailbox_client() as mailbox:
            mailbox.flag(mail_uids, '\\Seen', True)
  • server.py:209-220 (registration)
    The registration of the 'mark_mails_read' tool with its schema in server.py.
    Tool(
        name="mark_mails_read",
        description="메일을 읽음 상태로 변경",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "mail_uids": {
                    "type": "array",
                    "items": {"type": "string"},
                    "description": "읽음 처리할 메일들의 UID 목록"
                }
            },
  • The tool execution logic in the server's call handler that triggers the service method.
    elif name == "mark_mails_read":
        mail_uids = args.get("mail_uids", [])
    
        if not mail_uids:
            return [TextContent(type="text", text="읽음 처리할 메일 UID 목록이 필요합니다.")]
    
        mail_service.mark_as_read(mail_uids)
        return [TextContent(type="text", text=f"{len(mail_uids)}개의 메일이 읽음 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. While it correctly indicates a state modification (not read-only), it fails to describe important behaviors: whether this is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens with invalid UIDs, whether it's batched or atomic, and what the tool returns (success/failure indicators). The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single Korean phrase that directly states the tool's function. There's zero wasted language, and the meaning is front-loaded immediately. Every word earns its place by contributing essential information about the tool's purpose.

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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success status, error handling), doesn't mention side effects or dependencies, and provides no context about the mail system's behavior. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects despite having a clear but minimal purpose statement.

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' clearly documented in the schema as '읽음 처리할 메일들의 UID 목록' (list of UIDs of mails to mark as read). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 ('읽음 상태로 변경' - change to read status) and the resource ('메일' - mails), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mark_mails_unread' by specifying the opposite state change. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this modifies mail metadata rather than content retrieval.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing valid UIDs), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar operations like 'get_mail_detail' (which might mark as read automatically). The existence of 'mark_mails_unread' as a sibling tool creates ambiguity without usage context.

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