yahoo-mail-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v3.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinctly separate purpose: archiving, deleting, flagging, listing, marking read/unread, moving, reading, searching, and unflagging. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., archive_emails, delete_emails, list_folders). No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
11 tools is an appropriate number for an email management server, covering core operations without being overly numerous or sparse.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers reading, searching, and organizing emails, but lacks tools for composing, sending, or drafting emails, which are significant missing operations for an email server.
Average 3.5/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions UID permanence and usage for subsequent operations but omits whether it is read-only, rate limits, or authentication needs. Incomplete for a search tool.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key output detail (UID permanence). Efficient but could be slightly more structured for readability.
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 high schema coverage and no output schema, description covers purpose and UID output but lacks details on return format, pagination, and example usage. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so description adds limited parameter value. It reinforces 'advanced filters' but does not explain parameter interplay. Meets baseline for high coverage.
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 it searches emails with advanced filters and emphasizes UIDs as permanent identifiers. This distinguishes it from list_emails which may not use advanced filters, but no explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_emails or other search methods. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, putting the full burden on the description. It only states that flags are removed and notes UIDs are permanent. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether other metadata changes), error handling for invalid UIDs, permissions required, or if the operation is reversible. Essential behavioral context is missing.
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?
The description consists of two short, direct sentences. The first states the action, the second adds a key detail about UIDs. No unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.
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 simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks completeness in terms of behavioral expectations and error scenarios. For instance, it does not clarify if the operation is idempotent or what happens if a UID doesn't exist. The lack of annotations further reduces completeness.
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%, with both parameters described sufficiently. The description adds the fact that UIDs are 'permanent identifiers', which is helpful context beyond the schema's 'Array of UIDs to unflag'. However, this is a minor addition, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameters well.
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 the action: 'Remove flag/star from emails using UIDs.' It identifies the resource (emails' flags/stars) and the method (using UIDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'flag_emails' which adds flags, and other tools with different actions.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with other tools like 'mark_as_read' or 'delete_emails'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the operation uses UIDs and that UIDs are permanent, which implies the operation is based on stable identifiers. However, it does not state whether the source folder is affected (e.g., are emails removed from source? It says 'move', implying yes), nor any auth requirements, rate limits, or reversibility. The description is minimally transparent but lacks depth.
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?
The description is two sentences long, each sentence serves a distinct purpose. No fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action and clearly structured.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks guidance on return values, side effects (e.g., does it delete from source?), and how it differs from move_emails. Given the presence of similar siblings, more context would be beneficial.
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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning: 'UIDs are permanent identifiers' provides context for the uids parameter, but does not explain the folder parameter beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the action ('Move emails'), the destination ('Archive folder'), and the method ('using UIDs'). It also clarifies that UIDs are permanent identifiers, which is helpful. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_emails or move_emails (which allow arbitrary folders).
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., move_emails, delete_emails). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The user must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description describes a mutation operation ('flag') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as reversibility, whether previous flags are affected, or any rate limits. Given the absence of annotations, the description should provide more context.
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: first defines the action, second explains a key property of UIDs. Very concise and front-loaded with no unnecessary information.
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?
The tool is simple with two straightforward parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core action and UID usage, but lacks details on cross-folder behavior or interaction with sibling tools like marking as read. It is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a note about UIDs being permanent identifiers, reinforcing the 'uids' parameter's significance, but adds no further meaning beyond the schema.
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 the action ('Flag emails as important/starred') and the resource ('emails'). It specifies using UIDs, which are permanent identifiers, distinguishing it from other tools like unflag_emails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies using UIDs for reliable flagging ('UIDs are permanent identifiers'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions UIDs are permanent, but does not explain side effects (e.g., idempotency, notification triggers) or error handling for invalid UIDs.
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, no fluff, directly conveys purpose and a key behavioral note (UID permanence).
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?
Adequate for a simple action with two parameters, but lacks mention of edge cases or return behavior. Could benefit from a note on idempotency or error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about UIDs being 'permanent identifiers', enriching understanding of the parameter semantics.
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 the action ('Mark emails as read') and specifies the resource and method ('using UIDs'), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like 'archive_emails' or 'mark_as_unread'.
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., marking as read vs. archiving), nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that UIDs are permanent identifiers, but fails to state whether the operation requires authentication, what happens if a UID is invalid, or if it is reversible.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or how to select this tool among 10 siblings. The email context is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that UIDs are permanent identifiers, which clarifies the parameter's stability beyond the schema's description.
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 states the action ('Mark emails as unread'), the resource ('emails'), and the method ('using UIDs'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like mark_as_read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that UIDs are needed but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mark_as_read, flag_emails). No when-not or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the use of UIDs and hints at folder discovery via list_folders, but does not mention side effects like flag preservation, permissions, or rate limits, which limits transparency.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences that contain no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and adds a helpful pointer to list_folders, making it efficient.
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 move operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential: target folder and identifier usage. It could mention expected outcomes or errors, but given the straightforward nature, it is adequately complete.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it reinforces using UIDs and suggests list_folders for folderName. No additional guidance on sourceFolder or parameter formatting is provided.
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 it moves emails to a specified folder using UIDs, and notes UIDs are permanent identifiers. It effectively distinguishes the action from siblings like archive or delete, although it could elaborate on the move semantics (e.g., source removal).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description suggests using list_folders to see available folders, providing useful context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer move_emails over archive_emails or delete_emails, nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a move to Trash and recoverable, which is transparent, but omits details like authorization requirements, side effects, or error handling.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and key characteristic ('soft delete, recoverable'). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, or whether UIDs are global or folder-specific, leaving minor gaps.
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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (uids and folder), covering 100% of the schema. The description adds that UIDs are permanent identifiers, which is helpful but not essential beyond the schema's description of 'Array of UIDs to delete'.
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 specifies the action ('Move emails to Trash folder'), the method ('using UIDs'), and the nature ('soft delete, recoverable'), distinguishing it from permanent deletion or archiving. This differentiates it from sibling tools like archive_emails and move_emails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool is for soft deletion via UIDs, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'archive_emails' or 'move_emails' for moving to custom folders. No direct guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions returns metadata but does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only), pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter, or rate limits. The 'recent emails' claim is vague.
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, no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action and result. Efficiently conveys necessary information.
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?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on how to interpret the returned metadata or the definition of 'recent'. It is adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds helpful context for the folder parameter ('Use list_folders to see available folders') and clarifies the count default and max. This justifies a 4.
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 the action (list), resource (emails), source (Yahoo Mail folder), and what is returned (UIDs and enriched metadata). It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_emails or delete_emails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies listing is for overview but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_emails or read_email. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains UID permanence and sources, but omits whether reading changes state (e.g., marks as read), response format, or potential side effects.
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?
Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains UID property, third directs to source tools. No redundant phrasing.
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?
The description covers input well but lacks output details (e.g., content format, fields). With no output schema, this gap is significant. Context among siblings is adequate.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the description adds only marginal context by reinforcing UID provenance. It does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 'Read email content using UIDs' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the use of permanent identifiers. It also notes that UIDs come from list_emails or search_emails.
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?
The description indicates when to use (to read email content) and provides prerequisites (get UIDs from other tools). However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it correctly indicates a read-only list operation, it does not disclose any further behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or the meaning of 'available'.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, directly front-loading the core action and resource. Every word is necessary.
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?
Given the zero-parameter input and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. However, it could provide more context about what 'available' entails (e.g., system folders vs. user-created) to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds clear meaning by specifying the context and type of folders listed, which justifies a baseline score of 4.
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 the action ('List all available') and the resource ('IMAP folders/mailboxes') in the context of a Yahoo Mail account. It distinguishes itself from sibling email-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving available folders before performing email operations, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![yahoo-mail-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jtokib/yahoo-mail-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jtokib/yahoo-mail-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![yahoo-mail-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jtokib/yahoo-mail-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jtokib/yahoo-mail-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/jtokib/yahoo-mail-mcp-server'

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