imap-mail-mcp

create_folder

Create a new folder in an IMAP account to organize emails, including subfolders via the server delimiter, e.g. 'INBOX/Clientes'.

Instructions

Cria uma pasta. Use o delimitador do servidor para subpastas (ex.: 'INBOX/Clientes' ou 'INBOX.Clientes').

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`account`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1Sep 11, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / account
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Account",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the subfolder nesting convention, but says nothing about what happens if the folder already exists, permission/auth requirements, or account scoping for the account parameter.

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 terse sentences with the core action front-loaded and a practical example appended. No filler, though the two delimiter variants could be explained more briefly.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and one of two parameters undocumented, the description leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool: no return behavior, no duplicate-handling, and no account semantics.

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 0% across 2 parameters. The description meaningfully documents the 'name' parameter's subfolder delimiter syntax with concrete examples, but the 'account' parameter (with default "") is left entirely undefined in both schema and 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Cria uma pasta') which is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_folder and rename_folder. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the create action is unambiguous.

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 create a folder versus using list_folders, move_email, or rename_folder, and no mention of prerequisites or conditions. The example is about parameter syntax, not usage context.

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

Deploy Server