Skip to main content
Glama
Totally-Harmless

DingusMail

Server Configuration

Describes the environment variables required to run the server.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Instructions

Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.

This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.

Capabilities

Features and capabilities supported by this server

Protocol revision2025-11-25

CapabilityDetails
tools
{
  "listChanged": true
}
logging
{}
prompts
{
  "listChanged": false
}
resources
{
  "subscribe": false,
  "listChanged": false
}
extensions
{
  "io.modelcontextprotocol/ui": {}
}
experimental
{}

Tools

Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions

NameDescription
parse_emlA

Parse an .eml file and return metadata, content, and attachment info.

Does NOT extract attachment bytes - use extract_eml_attachments for that. Perfect for previewing what's in an email without bloat.

extract_eml_attachmentsA

Extract attachments from .eml file with smart organization.

Organizes files into folders:

  • small_files/: Files <10KB (icons, signatures, etc.)

  • documents/: PDFs, Word docs, spreadsheets, presentations

  • images/: All image files (inline + regular)

  • attachments/: Everything else

Prompts

Interactive templates invoked by user choice

NameDescription

No prompts

Resources

Contextual data attached and managed by the client

NameDescription

No resources

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: parse_eml provides a preview of email content and metadata, while extract_eml_attachments focuses solely on extracting attachment files. There is no overlap; the tool descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other to avoid confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: parse_eml and extract_eml_attachments. The verbs 'parse' and 'extract' accurately describe the operations, and the nouns clearly identify the target resources.

Tool Count3/5

With only two tools, the server feels thin even for a narrow domain like .eml handling. While each tool is valuable, the count is borderline and might warrant additional tools for a more complete workflow.

Completeness4/5

The two tools cover the primary read-oriented operations for .eml files: inspecting content and extracting attachments. Minor gaps exist, such as no ability to modify or create .eml files, but for the apparent purpose of parsing and extraction, the surface is reasonably complete.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues