Retrieves IMAP folder names and raw server entries, including flags and quoted names, so MCP clients can discover mailbox folders for read-only operations.
List IMAP folders (raw server entries; flags and quoted names may be present).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful context that results are raw server entries where flags and quoted names may appear unnormalized, which warns the agent not to expect clean display names. It omits any statement about permissions, account/connection requirements, or folder hierarchy/nesting behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical caveat — no filler or redundant restatement of the name. The parenthetical is dense but every clause carries information the agent needs about output shape.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the definition needs little, and the raw-entry caveat covers the main surprise. It still leaves gaps on hierarchy/namespace behavior and on how this differs from folder_status, which matters for selection among five siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The schema coverage is also 100%, leaving no semantic gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List IMAP folders'), which is clearly distinct from list_messages or search_messages. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling folder_status, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied by the name and the word 'List' — the description gives no explicit when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and never names folder_status as the alternative for checking a single folder's state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.