Mailsac MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Read an email

read_email

Read a single email from a test inbox to extract confirmation links, one-time codes, or message bodies. Supports text, HTML, raw MIME, and header formats.

Instructions

Read one email. format "text" (default) also returns links, actionLink and codes; "html" returns the HTML body; "raw" the full MIME source; "headers" the parsed headers.

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>"
    },
    "name": "read_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`format`	No	text
`address`	Yes
`messageId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose what each format returns (links/actionLink/codes for text, HTML body, MIME source, parsed headers). It omits whether reading marks the message as read, permission requirements, and error behavior, so it is partially complete but not rich.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose before enumerating format behaviors. The semicolon-dense format list is compressed but every clause adds information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main gap by explaining the return shape for each format. A simple read tool needs little more, though side effects and failure modes are unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fully explains the format enum's four values and their outputs. address and messageId remain undocumented, though their names and required status make their meaning self-evident.

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 and resource ('Read one email'), with 'one' implying single-message scope versus the sibling list_emails. It does not name an alternative tool or clarify the boundary with wait_for_email, so the differentiation is only implied.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The reader can infer that a messageId and address are prerequisites from the required parameters, but the description itself offers no routing context.

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

Deploy Server