imap-mail-mcp

download_attachment

Save email attachments to disk by folder and UID; use index -1 for all attachments or a specific index to save one. Returns the saved file paths.

Instructions

Salva anexos de um e-mail em disco. index=-1 salva todos; caso contrário salva só o anexo indicado (índice conforme read_email). dest_dir vazio usa a pasta de anexos da conta. Retorna os caminhos gravados.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uid`	Yes
`index`	No
`folder`	Yes
`account`	No
`dest_dir`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the index=-1 behavior and the empty-dest_dir fallback to the account's attachments folder, which is genuinely useful. It omits what happens on out-of-range index, whether files are overwritten, and any auth/account requirements.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the parameter behaviors follow logically. Slight redundancy in restating the return value when an output schema exists.

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?

Return value is covered by the output schema, so that sentence is optional padding. With 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the definition leaves uid/folder/account semantics and the mutation/permission profile unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: index (with the -1 sentinel and cross-reference to read_email) and dest_dir (empty = account attachment folder) are clarified. The required uid and folder, plus account, receive no explanation at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('salva anexos de um e-mail em disco'), which is clearly distinct from read_email or get_raw_email. It also cross-references a sibling ('índice conforme read_email'), aiding disambiguation, but does not explicitly frame itself against the alternatives.

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?

Explains the two usage modes via index (-1 saves all vs. single attachment) and the dest_dir default, which is useful operational guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over read_email / get_raw_email, nor notes prerequisites for having an email selected.

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

Deploy Server