de en es ja ko ru zh

JMAP MCP Server

Name: JMAP MCP Server
Author: jahfer

by jahfer

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

JMAP-MCP

¡Lea correos electrónicos a través de MCP!

Introducción

JMAP-MCP es un conector diseñado para interactuar con un servidor JMAP (Protocolo de Acceso a Correo JSON), lo que permite leer correos electrónicos mediante el Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP). Este proyecto demuestra específicamente la integración con un servidor JMAP de Fastmail.

Related MCP server: email-mcp

Configuración

Requisitos previos : asegúrese de tener Node.js instalado.
Clonar el repositorio : clona este repositorio en tu máquina local.
Instalar dependencias : navegue al directorio del proyecto y ejecute:
```
npm install
```

Configuración del token API

Debe configurar su token de API JMAP para autenticarse con su servidor de correo electrónico (p. ej., Fastmail). Obtenga su token de API desde la configuración de su servidor.

Establezca las variables de entorno JMAP_SESSION_URL y JMAP_TOKEN al ejecutar la aplicación.

Configuración de MCP

Para usar JMAP-MCP, debe configurarlo como mcpServer en su archivo de configuración de MCP. A continuación, se muestra un ejemplo de configuración:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "emails": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@jahfer/jmap-mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "JMAP_SESSION_URL": "https://api.fastmail.com/jmap/session", // for example
        "JMAP_TOKEN": "<your-jmap-token>"
      }
    }
  }
}

Uso

Una vez configurado en MCP, puede usar comandos o funciones dentro de MCP que interactúan con la definición del servidor para leer sus correos electrónicos a través del protocolo JMAP.

Available Tools

3 tools

get_email_contentD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inputSchema`	Yes

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

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

Purpose1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

get_mailboxesD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inputSchema`	Yes

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

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

Purpose1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

search_emailsD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inputSchema`	Yes

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

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

Purpose1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

3 tool updatesAug 15, 2025
- First observedget_email_content
- First observedget_mailboxes
- First observedsearch_emails

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 10:05 across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_email_content retrieves specific email content, get_mailboxes lists mailboxes, and search_emails searches across emails. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool for each task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_email_content, get_mailboxes, search_emails). The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.

Tool Count3/5

With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for an email server, as it lacks operations like creating, updating, or deleting emails or mailboxes. While the tools cover basic retrieval and search, the scope is limited and may not support full email workflows.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is significantly incomplete for an email domain, missing essential CRUD operations such as send_email, delete_email, create_mailbox, or update_email. This will likely cause agent failures when attempting comprehensive email management tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

Atomic MailOAuth
io.github.Atomic-Mail
Programmable email inbox for AI agents — JMAP, PoW auth, stdio MCP server.
Email Communication
1267
mcp4mailOAuth
online.mcp4mail
Your IMAP mailbox as an MCP server: read, search and (if you allow it) organize mail. Open source.
Email Communication
1
nylas A
io.usefulapi
MCP server for Nylas — read email, calendars, events and contacts, and send email or create events.
Email Calendar Management CRM
152
mailtempo
com.mailtempo
MCP server for MailTempo's public free temporary email inboxes.
Email Testing & QA Tools
2

Related MCP Servers

mcp-hey
Email App Automation
Sealjay
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
Local MCP server for Hey.com email - read, search, send, reply, and manage the screener via stored session cookies. Runs over stdio, stores no credentials.
Updated 11 days ago (2026-09-22 05:39 UTC)
37
12
MIT
email-mcp
Email Communication
swapnilsurdi
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Local MCP server for multi-account IMAP/SMTP email (iCloud + Gmail via app-specific passwords). Never marks mail read. Cross-folder search, idempotent sends, TLS verified.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-06-06 21:18 UTC)
8
MIT
protonmail-mcp-server
Email Communication
mattias242
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
MCP server for reading, searching, and sending ProtonMail emails via the ProtonMail Bridge.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-29 06:47 UTC)
16
2
GPL 3.0
mcp-email
Email Communication
algonacci
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
A minimal MCP server for reading, searching, managing, and sending email over IMAP and SMTP.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-28 03:49 UTC)
MIT