Retrieve all mailbox folders with decoded and raw IMAP names, special-use roles, and optional message/unseen counts to organize or audit email storage.
List folders with decoded names (e.g. 草稿箱, 已发送), raw IMAP names and special-use role (inbox/drafts/sent/trash/junk). with_counts=true adds message/unseen counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Email address; omit for the default (first) account. | |
| with_counts | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds relevant context about what folder data is returned and what with_counts adds, but does not mention permissions, pagination, or other behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, starting with 'List folders' and then adding the optional count behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main returned fields and the optional count behavior. It is nearly complete, with the only notable gap being no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents the account parameter, while the description fills in the otherwise undocumented with_counts parameter by explaining that it adds message/unseen counts. Together this covers both parameters well, though the description itself does not mention account.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List folders.' It also clarifies the returned folder representation (decoded names, raw IMAP names, special-use role), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but the resource type is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_accounts or search_messages. The only usage-like detail is the parameter behavior for with_counts, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.