list_emails

Retrieve emails from macOS Mail.app inbox with filters to find specific messages and review content locally.

Instructions

List emails from Mail.app inbox with optional filters

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Implementation Reference

server.js:82-86 (registration)

Tool registration loop where list_emails is registered with a stub handler that returns 'This is an inspection stub' message

for (const [name, desc] of TOOLS) {
  server.tool(name, desc, {}, async () => ({
    content: [{ type: "text", text: "This is an inspection stub. Install Pilot MCP on macOS: npx -y local-mcp@latest setup" }],
  }));
}

server.js:14-14 (registration)
Tool definition entry for list_emails in the TOOLS array with its description
```
["list_emails", "List emails from Mail.app inbox with optional filters"],
```

Tool Definition Quality

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. While 'Mail.app' clarifies the target application, description omits: read-only safety, result limits/pagination, return format, and authentication requirements. The 'optional filters' claim is unsupported by the schema.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb. Efficient length (9 words), though the final clause 'with optional filters' wastes space given it describes non-existent functionality.

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?

Lacking output schema and annotations, a list retrieval tool requires more context: result set limits, sorting behavior, or what email fields are returned. Description fails to compensate for missing structured metadata.

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?

Zero parameters present, establishing baseline of 4 per scoring rules. Description mentions 'optional filters' which misleadingly implies parameters exist, but this does not significantly detract from the baseline given the empty schema is self-documenting.

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?

Clear verb (List) and resource (emails from Mail.app inbox) effectively distinguishes from sibling outlook_list_emails. However, claiming 'optional filters' is confusing given the empty input schema with zero parameters.

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 use this versus siblings like search_emails, read_email, or outlook_list_emails. No mention of prerequisites or constraints despite numerous alternative email tools available.

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

Install Server

Pilot MCP

list_emails

Instructions

Input Schema

Implementation Reference

Tool Definition Quality

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API