Skip to main content
Glama
googlarz

Proton Mail Bridge MCP

Related Servers

Alternatives to Proton Mail Bridge MCP

  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    Enables comprehensive ProtonMail management through SMTP and IMAP, supporting email sending/reading, folder operations, analytics, and contact tracking with advanced search and automation capabilities.
    43
    -

Related Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to send, read, search, and organize emails via ProtonMail using Proton Bridge. Supports MCP-compatible clients like Claude and Cursor.
    18
    47 npm
    4
    MIT
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables AI assistants to interact with a Proton Mail mailbox through Proton Bridge, supporting listing, searching, reading, sending, and organizing emails.
    -
  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables AI assistants to read, search, send, reply, and organize ProtonMail emails through a local ProtonMail Bridge, with automatic Bridge discovery and pinned TLS verification.
    23
    LGPL 3.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables AI clients to interact with ProtonMail accounts through the Proton Bridge using SMTP and IMAP protocols. Provides email management capabilities via secure local bridge connections.
    21 npm
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enables AI assistants to read, organize, and send Proton Mail through the local Proton Bridge, with careful gating for sending and attachment access.
    34
    1
    Apache 2.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables AI assistants to send, read, search, and organize email from Proton Mail accounts via SMTP and IMAP.
    64 npm
    MIT

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Scored across 96 tools

Disambiguation3/5

With 96 tools, many share similar purposes (e.g., multiple search, thread, delete, and send variants). The detailed descriptions cross-reference alternatives and help, but the sheer number of overlapping options creates a high risk of misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use consistent snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_emails, create_draft, send_email). A few noun-first outliers like folder_stats and top_senders slightly break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

96 tools is far beyond the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server. While the domain is complex, the count is excessive and many tools could be consolidated (e.g., single/bulk/thread variants).

Completeness5/5

The surface covers an exhaustive range of email lifecycle operations: sending, drafts, templates, labels, folders, search, sync, attachments, analytics, and diagnostics. Few gaps exist beyond niche features like contact management.

Maintenance

ActivityActive
ResponsivenessSlow