apple-mail-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_email

Retrieve full email content, including headers and body, by providing a message_ref obtained from list_emails or search_emails results.

Instructions

Read the full content of a specific email including headers and body. The message_ref comes from list_emails or search_emails results.

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": {
      "message_ref": "<message_ref>"
    },
    "name": "get_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message_ref`	Yes	Composite message reference in format "account::mailbox::rfc2822-id". Obtained from list_emails or search_emails results.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It says 'Read' which implies non-destructive, and it specifies what content is returned (headers/body). However, it doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects (e.g., does not mark as read) or address any access or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no superfluous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and parameter origin.

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?

For a simple read tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what the output contains. Minor gap: no mention of attachments, message size limits, or error handling, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already well-documented. The description adds some context by restating the source of message_ref, but doesn't provide new syntactic or format details beyond what the schema already gives.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('full content of a specific email including headers and body'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_emails and search_emails by focusing on reading a single email's complete content.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It tells the agent that message_ref comes from list_emails or search_emails results, indicating when to use this tool (after obtaining a reference). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for basic guidance.

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