Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proton-mcp

proton-mcp

by RndmJoker
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List drafts

list_drafts
Read-only

Lists Proton Mail draft emails newest first, returning headers only for paging; read one with get_message using its id.

Instructions

Lists the drafts, newest first. Headers only, like every listing here. Use get_message with an id to read one.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_drafts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many to return.
offsetNoHow many to skip, for paging.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.11

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real signal beyond that: results are ordered newest first and contain headers only, not message bodies – a behavioral trait the agent would otherwise have to discover. Pagination behavior is left to 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it lists, what shape the output takes, and where to go for full content. The ordering fact is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

A simple read-only list tool with annotations and complete parameter documentation; the description covers ordering, output shape, and the follow-up path. Only minor gaps remain, such as what fields a header row contains and whether results are capped for large mailboxes.

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 limit and offset fully documented including defaults and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies ordering ('newest first') and adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Lists the drafts') plus scope details: newest-first ordering and headers-only output. It explicitly routes to get_message for full reads, which separates it from the read-a-single-message sibling. It doesn't distinguish itself from sibling list_messages or search_messages, though 'like every listing here' hints at shared behavior.

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?

Gives a clear next-step alternative: 'Use get_message with an id to read one,' so the agent knows this tool will not return bodies. No explicit exclusion against search_messages or list_messages when filtering, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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