Skip to main content
Glama
googlarz

Proton Mail Bridge MCP

by googlarz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_inbox_digest

Read-only

Get a structured inbox summary: unread counts, actionable threads, and overdue threads awaiting your reply. Use it to start an inbox review with an at-a-glance picture.

Instructions

Return a structured inbox summary: unread counts, top actionable threads, and overdue threads where a reply is pending from you. Use as the starting point for an inbox review session to get an at-a-glance picture. Prefer get_actionable_threads for a deeper, filterable list of threads needing action.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum threads per digest section.
offsetNoSkip this many threads in each section (use paging.<section>.nextOffset from the previous response to continue).
syncBeforeNoRefresh the local mailbox index from IMAP before building the digest.
minAgeHoursNoHow old a thread must be before it is considered stale waiting on you.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.43
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Skip this many threads in each section (use paging.<section>.nextOffset from the previous response to continue).",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the digest contains and its role as an overview entry point, but it does not disclose that syncBefore can trigger an IMAP index refresh or mention pagination behavior, both of which live only in the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return contents, followed by usage and the sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 does a good job enumerating the digest sections, but it omits any hint of the paged response structure (paging.<section>.nextOffset) that the schema references, leaving the return shape only partially described. Otherwise complete for a read-only aggregate tool.

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 all four parameters (limit, offset, syncBefore, minAgeHours) are already documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the param burden.

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 (return) and resource (structured inbox summary) and enumerates its contents: unread counts, top actionable threads, and overdue threads awaiting your reply. It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_actionable_threads, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly prescribes when to use it ('starting point for an inbox review session') and names the alternative plus its selection condition ('Prefer get_actionable_threads for a deeper, filterable list'). Nothing is left to inference.

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