Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Missive MCP

Missive MCP

by kanjidoc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

missive_list_messages

Read-only

Fetch email messages by their Message-ID header value. Returns the matching message or up to 10 results from non-compliant senders.

Instructions

Fetch messages matching an email Message-ID (the RFC 5322 Message-ID header value). Normally returns a single message; non-compliant senders may produce up to the latest 10 matches. Read-only.

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": {
      "email_message_id": "<email_message_id>"
    },
    "name": "missive_list_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
email_message_idYesRequired. The email `Message-ID` header value, e.g. "<0f1ab2d8-cd90-4dd1-a861-ef7e31fb3cdd@missiveapp.com>".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that normally a single message is returned, but non-compliant senders may yield up to 10. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose; no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, parameter format, and edge case behavior. No gaps remain.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter. The description adds meaning by referencing RFC 5322, providing an example, and clarifying the expected format. This elevates it above the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'messages', and the criterion 'email Message-ID' (RFC 5322 header). It uniquely identifies this tool among siblings and explains typical return counts (single message, up to 10).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have an email Message-ID. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, but the specificity is sufficient for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools