macos-mail-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_accounts

Retrieves every Mail.app account with its type, enabled status, and email addresses, canonicalizing known types and preserving unknown raw type text. Use it to inspect configured mail accounts.

Instructions

List all Mail.app accounts with their type, enabled status, and email addresses. Known types are canonicalized; other raw Mail type text is preserved, including backend-reported unknown.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses non-obvious normalization semantics: known types are canonicalized while raw Mail type text is preserved, including backend-reported unknown values. It does not describe ordering, pagination, or permission requirements, but for a simple read-only listing this is solid disclosure.

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 with no filler. The primary capability is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a genuinely useful caveat about type canonicalization rather than restating the first.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and how account types are represented. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning ordering or whether disabled accounts are included, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that do not exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all Mail.app accounts') and enumerates the returned fields (type, enabled status, email addresses). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_account_detail, which implies a single-account lookup.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'List all' signals enumeration versus a detail lookup, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_account_detail or list_mailboxes. An agent can infer the distinction from sibling names, but no routing guidance is given.

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