Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Graph Mail MCP

Graph Mail MCP

by hanhandly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

mail_list_attachments

List attachment metadata for a specific email message. Provide the message ID and optional mailbox scope to retrieve attachment details without downloading files.

Instructions

List metadata for a message attachments collection.

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": {
      "messageId": "<messageId>"
    },
    "name": "mail_list_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageIdYes
mailboxScopeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'List' and 'metadata', but does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, size limits, or authentication needs. It does not contradict any annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and readable, though the brevity sacrifices useful context. For what is actually written, the structure is clean.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotation metadata, so an agent does not know what fields the metadata list contains or how the results are scoped or paginated. The required messageId is evident from the schema, but a list tool needs more context about its return shape and behavior to be fully callable without guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the parameters, but it mentions neither messageId nor mailboxScope. The input schema itself documents the parameters well, but the description adds no meaning beyond that structured data.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('List'), resource ('attachments collection'), and the nature of the output ('metadata'), which distinguishes it from the sibling mail_get_attachment. It does not explicitly say the scope is a single message, but the required messageId parameter makes that clear enough.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as mail_get_attachment or mail_get_message. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose between tools.

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