Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proton-mcp

proton-mcp

by RndmJoker
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Apply a mail filter to existing mail

apply_filter
Idempotent

Applies a saved Proton Mail filter to existing mailbox messages by filter ID, enabling bulk organization of mail already received.

Instructions

Applies a saved Proton Mail filter to the mail that is already there, as "Apply filter to existing emails" does in Proton's settings. Proton works through the mail in the background, which on a large mailbox can take hours, and reports neither how many messages changed nor when it is done. By default the user agrees in a window of the browser extension first, and this call returns before they decide. Only a filter that passes the same rules as a proposal can be applied; any other is left to the user in Proton's settings. Takes the id from list_filters.

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": "apply_filter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe id of the saved filter, from list_filters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing that processing is asynchronous and can take hours on a large mailbox, that no count or completion signal is returned, and that a user consent dialog gates the action while the call returns before they decide. None of this contradicts the supplied hints (readOnlyHint=false fits a mutation, idempotentHint=true is consistent with applying a fixed rule).

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then layered with the operational caveats in a sensible order. Some sentences are long and clause-heavy, but each carries distinct information rather than padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the mutation is asynchronous, unbounded in duration, without completion feedback, and subject to a user consent gate. Return behavior is explained even though no output schema exists.

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% and the schema already says the id comes from list_filters, so the description's "Takes the id from list_filters" is a restatement. It adds no format, pattern, or failure-mode detail about the id beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Applies a saved Proton Mail filter to the mail that is already there") and pins the scope to existing mail rather than incoming mail. The closing reference to a filter that "passes the same rules as a proposal" implicitly separates it from propose_filter and manage_filters.

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?

Clear about the situation it serves (retroactive application to an existing mailbox) and where the id comes from (list_filters). It also states a precondition: only filters passing the same rules as a proposal can be applied, others are deferred to Proton settings. It never explicitly routes the agent to propose_filter for the alternative path, so a small inference is left.

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