protonmail-mcp-server
Related Servers
Alternatives to protonmail-mcp-server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for reading and searching Proton Mail via Proton Mail Bridge, providing tools to list mailboxes, list/search messages, and get message details with TLS certificate pinning.4MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceSelf-hosted MCP server that enables reading, sending, and automating Proton Mail via Bridge, with optional SimpleLogin alias management.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that reads, searches, organizes, and deletes Proton Mail through the local Proton Mail Bridge, with read-only mode and sender authentication checks. It cannot send mail.58 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceUnofficial MCP server for Proton Mail (not affiliated with Proton AG) — send, read, search & organize email over SMTP/IMAP3158 npm6MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to interact with Proton Mail through a self-hosted server that works alongside Proton Mail Bridge. It provides read-only mailbox tools such as listing folders, searching mail, and retrieving messages while keeping Bridge isolated from the network.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA read-only MCP server that connects to Proton Mail via Proton Bridge, enabling AI assistants to search, list, and read emails securely without leaving your machine.423 npm1MIT
TDQS
Scored across 16 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: listing mailboxes, getting status, fetching headers vs full email, searching, marking read/unread, moving, deleting, sending, replying, forwarding, and folder CRUD. Even get_email_headers and get_email are clearly separated by intent (metadata vs full content).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., list_mailboxes, get_email, send_email, create_folder). The only minor deviation is reply_to_email, but it still fits the pattern with a preposition, maintaining overall consistency.
At 16 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool covers a distinct and necessary operation for a full email client workflow. The count feels justified given the breadth of actions (mailboxes, email states, sending, folders) and does not feel bloated.
The tool surface covers the core email lifecycle: read (list, get, search), update (mark read/unread, move), delete, send, reply, forward, and folder management (list, create, rename, delete). Minor gaps exist like attachment handling, drafts, and flagging, but these are not critical for basic email automation.