imap-mail-mcp

get_raw_email

Fetch the full raw RFC822 message source (headers + MIME) for troubleshooting email parsing or delivery issues.

Instructions

Retorna a fonte RFC822 completa da mensagem (cabeçalhos brutos + MIME). Útil para diagnóstico.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_raw_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uid`	Yes
`folder`	Yes
`account`	No
`max_chars`	No

Output 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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is returned (RFC822 source) but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or truncation behavior even though a max_chars parameter (default 50000) implies output can be cut off.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by a usage hint. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter descriptions, the definition leaves an agent guessing about scoping, truncation, and when raw extraction is appropriate versus read_email.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters (uid, folder, account, max_chars), and the description explains none of them. It does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the meaning of account scoping and max_chars truncation entirely undocumented.

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+resource: it returns the complete RFC822 source (raw headers + MIME) of a message. The word 'raw' distinguishes it in spirit from a parsed reader like read_email, but no sibling is named or contrasted explicitly.

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?

'Útil para diagnóstico' hints at the use case (diagnostics), which is implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over read_email or under what conditions raw source is needed, and no exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server