Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
email-mcp-plus

email-mcp-plus

by idea404
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_sent_items

Filter sent emails by subject, date, or recipient. Retrieve matching messages with a configurable limit.

Instructions

Search sent items by subject/date.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_sent_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoRecipient (search in body)
limitNoMax results
sinceNoISO date (YYYY-MM-DD)
subjectNoSubject keyword

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'search' and does not disclose return format, sorting order, or the fact that the 'to' parameter searches in the body. This minimal disclosure does not go beyond what the name implies.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it under-specifies some capabilities.

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?

Given four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, does not mention the 'to' parameter, and provides no context on how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_email_body' or 'list_attachments'.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'subject/date' (mapping to 'subject' and 'since') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema and omits 'to' and 'limit' entirely.

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 clearly states the action 'Search' and the resource 'sent items', which distinguishes it from the sibling 'search_emails' tool. However, it omits the 'to' recipient search parameter, so it only partially captures the full searchable criteria.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'search_emails'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context indicating the best use case.

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