Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
multi-mail-mcp

multi-mail-mcp

by claygeo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List Mail Accounts

list_accounts

Retrieve local Gmail and Microsoft 365 account aliases configured on this server without exposing secrets.

Instructions

List local Gmail and Microsoft 365 account aliases available to this MCP server. No secrets are returned.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0-alpha.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating 'No secrets are returned' and specifying the scope (local accounts). However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if no accounts are configured.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and include a critical caveat. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no fluff.

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 parameterless list tool, the description is largely complete. It specifies what is listed (account aliases) and what is not returned (secrets). However, it does not describe the output format or structure, which would be expected given no output schema. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the action (list), the resources (local Gmail and Microsoft 365 account aliases), and adds a clarifying note about secrets not being returned. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools which all involve different operations like creating drafts or sending mail.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the usage is implied: before using email-related tools, one might list available accounts. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools