imap-mail-mcp

forward_email

Send an existing email to new recipients while preserving the original body and attachments; optionally add Cc and save a copy to Sent.

Instructions

Encaminha um e-mail (corpo em texto + anexos originais) para novos destinatários.

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": {
      "folder": "<folder>",
      "uid": "<uid>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "forward_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cc`	No
`to`	Yes
`uid`	Yes
`body`	No
`folder`	Yes
`account`	No
`save_to_sent`	No
`include_attachments`	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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that original attachments are carried over and that a text body is supplied, but says nothing about immediate dispatch, whether a copy is saved to Sent by default, or any permission requirements for an 8-parameter mutation 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?

A single compact sentence with the key behavior (body + original attachments) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here reflects under-specification as much as tight writing.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 8 parameters at 0% coverage, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot infer how to identify the source email or what save_to_sent and account do.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps to body, include_attachments, and to/cc. Critical parameters like folder, uid, account, and save_to_sent are entirely unexplained, leaving half the schema opaque.

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 ("Encaminha um e-mail") plus the payload composition (text body + original attachments) and target (new recipients). This distinguishes it from a generic send, though it never names reply_email or send_email explicitly.

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 forward versus reply_email or send_email, and no prerequisites (e.g., the email must already exist in a folder). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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

Deploy Server