Skip to main content
Glama
proton-mcp

proton-mcp

by RndmJoker

Reply to a message

send_reply
Destructive

Replies to an existing Proton Mail message and sends it in the same conversation, with a confirmation prompt before sending.

Instructions

Replies to a message and sends the reply, with the reference headers that put it in the same conversation. Unlike a reply written as a draft, this one keeps those headers: Proton rewrites them for anything it stores, and this is never stored before it goes. By default every send asks the user to confirm first, through the client, showing the sender, every recipient separated into To, Cc and Bcc, and the subject. It carries no part of the message itself and links to a page where the whole thing can be read as the recipient will see it, and a client that cannot show the question cannot send. The user can allow a tool to send without asking, within bounds they choose; the answer then says that it did. The body is plain text and markup is not interpreted. HTML written here is delivered as visible characters, so the recipient would read the tags rather than see formatting. Give a message its shape with line breaks, blank lines, indentation and plain lists, and write a link as the bare address so that what is read is what is followed. A message may instead be written as markup, in the html field, which is delivered as formatting rather than as visible tags. Give one or the other, not both: a message that carries markup has its plain text half dropped, so the half that was confirmed would never arrive. Permitted are headings, paragraphs, line breaks, rules, quotes, emphasis, lists, tables, links and images, with colour, font, alignment, spacing and borders. Anything else is refused rather than quietly removed, and the answer names what and why. Note that the preview page linked from the confirmation lists every address in the message in full, including the ones behind links and images, and every alt text, because those are what a recipient reads. The question in the client stays short and carries counts instead. Text is UTF-8 everywhere: subject, body and addresses. Write characters as the language actually spells them, including umlauts, accents, sharp s, quotation marks and any other non-ASCII character. Do not transliterate them away (no "ae" for "ä", no "ss" for "ß"): the subject is encoded for transport and decoded again on arrival, and the body carries its character set, both verified against the Bridge. A transliterated message is simply a message with the wrong words in it.

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": {
      "messageId": "<messageId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "send_reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlNoYour part of the message as markup instead of plain text. The original is quoted below it either way. The quote keeps the original's own markup, character for character, minus what would reach out of it: style blocks, document-level elements, scripts and comments. A message this server would not itself compose can therefore still be replied to or forwarded, but its formatting travels along, and so does anything a link in it points at.
textYesThe reply. The original is quoted below it.
mailboxNoThe mailbox the original is in, if known.
replyAllNoWhen true, the other recipients of the original are put in copy.
messageIdYesThe message being replied to.
markupLevelNoHow much markup is permitted. "standard" covers ordinary formatted mail. "extended" permits every CSS property, including ones that can hide content, and makes the confirmation carry a warning telling the person to open the preview. Prefer "standard"; reach for "extended" only when asked for something that needs it, such as a button, which requires display:inline-block.standard

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.11

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare destructive, open-world, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: default confirmation through the client, preview page contents, what the answer reports, refusal of unsupported markup, the plain-text/html mutually exclusive rule, and UTF-8 encoding requirements. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the description runs long and repeats encoding and formatting guidance in several places. The detail is mostly relevant, yet it could be tightened considerably without losing essential behavioral information.

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 non-idempotent send tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: confirmation behavior, preview contents, failure/refusal reporting, markup restrictions, and encoding expectations. An agent has enough information to call this safely and interpret the response.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the structured descriptions already explain most parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics, especially the rule that text and html must not both be supplied because the plain-text half would be dropped, and it reinforces how markup formatting is treated versus literal tags.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: it replies to a message and sends the reply with reference headers to keep it in the same conversation. It also explicitly distinguishes this from a reply written as a draft, making the sibling reply_draft easy to tell apart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit when/when-not guidance: use plain text or html but not both, prefer standard markupLevel and reach for extended only when needed, and explains the draft alternative. It also explains the confirmation flow and when a user can allow sending without a prompt, which helps an agent decide whether the send is appropriate.

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