Maily MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

maily_get_message

Retrieve a message's full details including sender, recipients, date, subject, body, and attachment IDs; optionally include raw HTML by setting include_html.

Instructions

Returns the full content of a message (sender, recipients, date, subject, text body, attachments with their attachment_id). Set include_html=True to also get the raw HTML.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "maily_get_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message_id`	Yes
`include_html`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.1Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully describes the return content, including attachments with their attachment_id, and explains the include_html flag, but it does not state permission requirements, error behavior for invalid message_id, or whether content is truncated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return content and followed by the optional HTML behavior. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and the optional include_html behavior well. Minor gaps around error cases and permissions remain, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains include_html clearly as returning raw HTML, but message_id is only implied by context rather than described as the identifier obtained from list/search results.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the full content of a message, and it enumerates the fields returned (sender, recipients, date, subject, text body, attachments). It implicitly differentiates from list/search siblings by emphasizing full single-message content, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this tool fetches a specific message when a message_id is known, while list/search tools are for finding messages. There is no explicit statement about when to use this versus maily_list_messages, maily_search, or maily_export_eml.

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

Deploy Server