Apple Mail MCP Server

by isityael

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

forward_email

Find an email by account and subject keyword, then forward it to one or more recipients with an optional message.

Instructions

Forward an email to one or more recipients.

Args: account: Account name (e.g., "Gmail", "Work") subject_keyword: Keyword to search for in email subjects to: Recipient email address(es), comma-separated for multiple message: Optional message to add before forwarded content mailbox: Mailbox to search in (default: "INBOX") cc: Optional CC recipients, comma-separated for multiple bcc: Optional BCC recipients, comma-separated for multiple

Returns: Confirmation message with details of forwarded email

User Preferences: {"workflow": "default", "notifications": "enabled"}

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "subject_keyword": "<subject_keyword>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "forward_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cc`	No
`to`	Yes
`bcc`	No
`account`	Yes
`mailbox`	No	INBOX
`message`	No
`subject_keyword`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.6.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action (forward) and parameters, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., email not found), state changes, or rate limits. Some basic context is provided, but significant gaps remain.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections and is reasonably concise. It could be slightly tighter (e.g., the User Preferences line seems extraneous), but overall it is clear and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 3 required, many siblings) and no output schema details, the description covers parameters and return but lacks usage guidelines, error conditions, and prerequisite details (e.g., email must exist). It is functional but incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description adds full meaning to all 7 parameters beyond the schema, including account, subject_keyword, to, message, mailbox, cc, bcc. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates completely, providing clear semantics for each parameter.

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?

The description clearly states 'Forward an email to one or more recipients,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compose_email' (new email) and 'reply_to_email' (reply), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reply, compose). It implicitly suggests usage via parameter details, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, which is important given the many sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.