Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Apple Mail MCP

Apple Mail MCP

by jenyago
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_mailboxes

Read-only

Retrieve all mailbox paths for a specified Apple Mail account, including nested folders, as arrays of names.

Instructions

List account mailbox paths as arrays of names, including nested mailboxes.

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_id": "<account_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_mailboxes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — that results are nested/recursive arrays of names — but says nothing about auth requirements, sorting, or coverage limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It earns its place, though it is terse enough that it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. What remains missing is any account_id semantics and any routing guidance among the sibling list/search tools, leaving the definition minimally adequate.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter, account_id, which the description never explains (format, where it comes from, whether it can be omitted). With no schema-level documentation to fall back on, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource ('List account mailbox paths') and adds scope ('including nested mailboxes'). It is reasonably distinguishable from list_accounts and read_message, though the boundary with the sibling search_inboxes is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the alternatives — no mention of search_inboxes, search_messages, or any precondition. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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