Skip to main content
Glama
lobster-kit

mcp-server-lobstermail

by lobster-kit
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Get Email

get_email

Retrieve a specific email by ID with full body content formatted for LLM processing, using inbox and email identifiers.

Instructions

Get a single email by ID with full body in LLM-safe format.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inbox_idYesInbox ID (e.g. ibx_...)
email_idYesEmail ID (e.g. eml_...)

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:156-162 (registration)
    Registration of the get_email tool, including the schema.
    server.registerTool('get_email', {
  title: 'Get Email',
  description: 'Get a single email by ID with full body in LLM-safe format.',
  inputSchema: {
    inbox_id: z.string().describe('Inbox ID (e.g. ibx_...)'),
    email_id: z.string().describe('Email ID (e.g. eml_...)'),
  },
  • src/index.ts:163-180 (handler)
    The handler implementation for the get_email tool, which fetches and formats the email content.
    }, async ({ inbox_id, email_id }) => {
  const inbox = await getInbox(inbox_id);
  const email = await inbox.getEmail(email_id);

  const parts: string[] = [
    `Email ID: ${email.id}`,
    `From: ${email.from}`,
    `To: ${email.to.join(', ')}`,
    `Subject: ${email.subject}`,
    `Date: ${email.createdAt}`,
    email.isInjectionRisk ? `⚠️ INJECTION RISK (score: ${email.security.injectionRiskScore})` : '',
    ``,
    email.safeBodyForLLM(),
  ];

  if (email.attachments && email.attachments.length > 0) {
    parts.push('', 'Attachments:');
    for (const att of email.attachments) {

Tool Definition Quality

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable context about 'LLM-safe format' (sanitization behavior) and 'full body' (content completeness). However, it omits error behavior (what happens if ID doesn't exist), side effects (whether this marks the email as read), and attachment handling.

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?

Single sentence of 11 words that is perfectly front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place: 'single' distinguishes quantity, 'by ID' specifies lookup method, 'full body' defines content scope, and 'LLM-safe format' reveals critical processing behavior. Zero redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It compensates for missing output schema by describing return characteristics ('full body', 'LLM-safe format'). Only minor gaps prevent a 5: no mention of 404/not-found behavior or whether attachments are included in 'full body'.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both `inbox_id` and `email_id` including format examples (e.g. ibx_..., eml_...). At this coverage level, baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics (e.g., explaining the relationship between the two IDs or that email_id must belong to inbox_id), but the schema adequately documents individual fields.

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 specific action (Get) and resource (email) with key differentiators: 'by ID' distinguishes from search/list, 'single' distinguishes from batch/thread operations, and 'full body' specifies content scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling `wait_for_email` (which also retrieves single emails) or `get_thread`.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like `search_emails` (find by criteria) or `wait_for_email` (receive new emails). The phrase 'by ID' implies prerequisite knowledge of the ID, but doesn't state that users must first call `search_emails` or `check_inbox` to obtain it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lobster-kit/mcp-server-lobstermail'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server