Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proton MCP Server

Proton MCP Server

by cogghaus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Read Full Email

proton_read_email
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read full email content from Proton Mail, including headers, body, and attachments, by specifying folder and email UID.

Instructions

Read the complete content of an email, including headers, body, and attachments. Specify folder and email UID.

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": {
      "uid": "<uid>"
    },
    "name": "proton_read_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folderNoINBOX
uidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that it returns complete content (headers, body, attachments), which is useful but minimal. No disclosure of potential size limits or pagination.

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, direct and front-loaded. Every sentence provides value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema, and description doesn't specify return format (e.g., JSON structure, attachment encoding). For a tool that returns full email content, this is a significant gap. However, the tool is simple with only 2 parameters.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). Description mentions both parameters (folder, email UID) but doesn't explain constraints like uid format or folder naming. Partially compensates for missing schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Read' and resource 'email', and specifies scope: complete content including headers, body, attachments. Distinguishes from sibling tools like proton_list_emails which likely list metadata only.

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?

Description implies when to use (need full email content) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison to alternatives like proton_search_emails. No prerequisites stated.

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