Skip to main content
Glama
caijianying

Email-MCP

by caijianying
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Email-MCP 服务

GitHub Stars AUR

这是一个基于 MCP 协议的邮件发送服务，它允许 AI 助手通过标准化接口自动发送电子邮件。

概述

虽然目前只测试了接入 Spring-AI 的 Java 服务，但本服务理论上适用于所有支持 MCP 协议的 AI 助手和客户端。

注意：目前仅支持本地运行环境

Related MCP server: Email MCP Server

安装步骤

  1. 克隆本仓库

    git clone [仓库地址]
cd email-mcp

  2. 安装依赖

    npm install

  3. 构建项目

    npm run build

配置与运行

克隆仓库本地运行，请使用如下配置：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "email-mcp": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": [
        "yourpath\\email-mcp\\build\\server.js",
        "--verbose"
      ],
      "env": {}
    }
  }
}

注意：请将 yourpath 替换为您实际的项目路径

使用指南

发送邮件

与 AI 助手交互时，只需提供以下必填参数即可发送邮件：

  • SMTP服务器主机名（如：smtp.exmail.qq.com）

  • 端口号（如：465）

  • 发件邮箱（如：xxx@xx.com）

  • 发件密码（如：*****）

  • 收件人（如：xxx@qq.com）

  • 邮件主题

  • 邮件正文

示例：

SMTP服务器主机名是smtp.exmail.qq.com，端口是465，发件邮箱是xxx@xx.com，发件密码是*****,收件人是xxx@qq.com,正文是你好,好久不见,主题是测试

开发与贡献

有问题欢迎提 issue，大家共同进步！

许可证

本项目采用 Apache 许可证。详情请参阅 LICENSE 文件。

Available Tools

1 tool
mcp_email_sendD

发送邮件

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYesSMTP服务器主机名
portYesSMTP服务器端口号
subjectYes邮件主题
toYes收件人邮箱地址
bodyYes邮件正文
fromYes发件人邮箱地址
fromPasswordYes发件人邮箱密码

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. '发送邮件' reveals nothing about authentication requirements (though parameters suggest SMTP credentials), rate limits, error conditions, what happens upon success, or any side effects. For a tool that sends emails with sensitive credential parameters, this lack of transparency is particularly problematic.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While technically concise with just two characters, this represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to communicate essential information that would help an agent use the tool correctly. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 7 required parameters (including sensitive credentials), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, authentication requirements, or any behavioral aspects. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata that would help an agent understand this complex email-sending operation.

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 all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero information about parameters beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '发送邮件' (send email) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'mcp_email_send'. It provides no additional specificity about what kind of email sending operation this performs, what resources it acts upon, or how it differs from other potential email tools. While the verb 'send' is clear, the description lacks any distinguishing details about scope or functionality.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool. There are no sibling tools mentioned, but the description doesn't indicate prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for invocation. An agent would have no information about when this tool is applicable versus alternatives that might exist elsewhere.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • First observedmcp_email_send
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool has a clear and distinct purpose of sending emails.

Naming Consistency5/5

The naming is trivially consistent as there is only one tool. The tool name 'mcp_email_send' follows a clear pattern with a prefix, resource, and verb, though consistency cannot be assessed across multiple tools.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool for an email server is too few for the apparent scope. Email management typically requires operations like reading, listing, deleting, or searching emails, making this set feel incomplete and thin.

Completeness1/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for an email domain. It only provides a send function, lacking essential operations such as receiving, reading, listing, or managing emails, which will cause significant agent failures in handling email-related tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Gmail AutoAuth MCP Server

    SepehrShapouri
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An MCP server enabling AI assistants to manage Gmail through natural language, including sending, reading, searching, labeling, and handling attachments with auto authentication.
    1
    MIT

  • Email MCP Server

    codefuturist
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An MCP server providing comprehensive email capabilities via IMAP and SMTP, enabling AI assistants to read, search, send, manage, schedule, and analyze emails across multiple accounts.
    49
    5,599
    107
    LGPL 3.0

  • email-mcp-server

    egyptianego17
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    An MCP server that enables AI assistants to send emails via SMTP, supporting simple and custom emails with attachments and CC/BCC, plus connection testing.
    3
    28
    MIT

  • email-mcp

    yashjoshiatgit
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A production-ready MCP server that empowers AI agents to securely send emails via SMTP, supporting plain text, HTML, and attachments.
    MIT

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/caijianying/email-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server