Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
evilash182

Spacemail for Claude

by evilash182
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Read email

read_email
Idempotent

Opens a specific message by ID to return its full text, sender, recipients, date, and attachment names without marking it as read unless requested.

Instructions

Opens one message and returns its full text, sender, recipients, date and attachment names. Doesn't mark it as read unless asked.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe message id shown in search or inbox results (unique within its folder).
folderNoFolder to look in. Defaults to the inbox. Accepts "inbox", "sent", "drafts", "trash", "spam", "archive" or an exact folder name from list_folders.
accountNoWhich mailbox to use, by its name or email address. Configured: "Example". Can be left out, there's only one.
mark_as_readNoAlso mark the message as read. Defaults to false so the user still sees it as new.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which would otherwise be puzzling for a read tool; the description resolves this by explaining it only marks the message read when asked. It also discloses the returned fields, though it says nothing about permissions, missing-message behavior, or attachment content limits.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the return payload front-loaded and the side-effect caveat second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields, and it covers the one non-obvious behavioral wrinkle (read-state mutation). Minor gaps remain around error cases and attachment handling, but nothing essential to correct 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 100%, so id, folder, account and mark_as_read are already fully documented in the schema. The description's note about not marking as read merely restates the mark_as_read default rather than adding new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Opens one message") and enumerates exactly what comes back: full text, sender, recipients, date, attachment names. The singular "one message" implicitly separates it from list-style siblings like search_emails and check_inbox.

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 infers it should call this after obtaining an id from search or inbox results. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative.

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