Skip to main content
Glama
jhw7500

Email MCP Server

by jhw7500

list_emails

Retrieve recent emails with subject, sender, and timestamp details. Specify count to view up to 50 messages for quick inbox overview.

Instructions

최근 이메일 목록을 조회합니다. 제목, 발신자, 수신일시를 포함합니다.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo조회할 이메일 수 (기본: 10, 최대: 50)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler logic for 'list_emails' which calculates the count, retrieves email headers via a POP3 connection, and formats the result.
    case "list_emails": {
      const count = Math.min((args.count as number) || 10, 50);
      const headers = await withConnection(config, (client) => client.list(count));
      return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: formatEmailList(headers) }] };
    }
  • The definition and input schema for the 'list_emails' tool.
    {
      name: "list_emails",
      description: "최근 이메일 목록을 조회합니다. 제목, 발신자, 수신일시를 포함합니다.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          count: {
            type: "number",
            description: "조회할 이메일 수 (기본: 10, 최대: 50)",
          },
        },
      },
    },
  • Helper function to format the list of email headers into a string for the tool output.
    function formatEmailList(headers: EmailHeader[]): string {
      if (headers.length === 0) return "이메일이 없습니다.";
      return headers
        .map(
          (h, i) =>
            `${i + 1}. **${h.subject}**\n` +
            `   From: ${h.from} | ${h.date ? new Date(h.date).toLocaleString("ko-KR") : "날짜 없음"}\n` +
            `   ID: ${h.id}`
        )
        .join("\n\n");
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('조회합니다') and lists included fields, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like ordering (most recent first?), pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when count exceeds available emails. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second adds useful detail about included fields. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format beyond listing three field names, doesn't specify ordering or time range for 'recent', and provides no error handling information. Given the complexity of email data and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more complete context for effective tool use.

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 has 100% description coverage with clear documentation of the 'count' parameter including default value and maximum. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 tool's purpose as '조회합니다' (retrieve/list) with the resource '최근 이메일 목록' (recent email list) and specifies what information is included. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_emails' by focusing on recent emails rather than search functionality, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'fetch_recent_emails' which appears to be a similar sibling.

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 like 'fetch_recent_emails' or 'search_emails'. It mentions '최근' (recent) which implies a temporal context, but doesn't specify what 'recent' means or when to choose this over other email retrieval tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jhw7500/email-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server