protonmail-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Markera som oläst

mark_email_unread

Idempotent

Mark one or more emails as unread in a specified mailbox by providing UID(s), so you can restore unread status for follow-up or re-processing.

Instructions

Markera ett eller flera e-post som olästa.

Args: uid: UID:t som sträng, eller en lista med upp till 100 UID:n ur samma mailbox mailbox: Mappen som UID:t kom från (obligatorisk). UID:n gäller per mapp: samma nummer i en annan mapp är ett annat mejl. Använd fältet mailbox från svaret av list_emails, search_emails eller get_email.

Returns: True när markeringen är gjord. Kastar ett fel om UID:t inte finns i mailbox (UID:n gäller per mapp) eller om Bridge nekar. Med en lista med UID:n blir svaret {"ok": [UID, ...], "failed": [{"uid": ..., "error": ...}]}: ett resultat per UID, i ett enda IMAP-kommando. UID:n som inte finns eller som Bridge nekar hamnar i failed medan de andra genomförs. Ett ogiltigt UID (inte heltal) eller fler än 100 avvisar hela anropet innan något ändras.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uid`	Yes	Mejlets UID i mailbox, eller en lista med upp till 100 UID:n ur samma mailbox. Med en lista blir svaret {"ok": [UID, ...], "failed": [{"uid": ..., "error": ...}]}.
`mailbox`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv0.4.0Oct 21, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / mailbox / default
```
Removed value: -"INBOX"
```
addedInput schema / properties / mailbox / maxLength
```
Added value: +255
```
addedInput schema / properties / mailbox / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```

addedInput schema / properties / uid / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxItems": 100,
+    "minItems": 1,
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / uid / description

Added value: +"Mejlets UID i mailbox, eller en lista med upp till 100 UID:n ur samma mailbox. Med en lista blir svaret {\"ok\": [UID, ...], \"failed\": [{\"uid\": ..., \"error\": ...}]}."

removedInput schema / properties / uid / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "uid"
-]New value: +[
+  "uid",
+  "mailbox"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / result / type
```
Removed value: -"boolean"
```

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses error behavior when the UID is absent or Bridge denies, partial-failure batch semantics (ok/failed split within a single IMAP command), and atomic rejection when the UID is malformed or exceeds 100 entries. That is rich mutation-behavior context not available from structured fields.

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?

The description is long but structured with Args/Returns sections and front-loads the core action before the semantics. Nearly every sentence earns its place (batch behavior, error cases, UID scoping), though the Returns detail is somewhat verbose given an output schema exists.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation tool with annotations present and an output schema defined, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: required per-folder UID scoping, batch limits, partial-failure handling, and failure conditions. Nothing material 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?

Schema coverage is only 50% (mailbox has no schema description), and the description compensates by explaining that UIDs are scoped per mailbox, that the same number in another folder is a different email, and by naming the sibling tools whose responses supply the mailbox value. It also reiterates the batch response shape for uid, adding real meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The opening line names a specific verb and resource ('Markera ett eller flera e-post som olästa') and immediately conveys batch capability. An agent can distinguish this from mark_email_read, flag_email, and unflag_email without opening any schema.

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?

The description tells the agent where to obtain the mailbox value (from list_emails, search_emails, get_email responses), which is workflow guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as mark_email_read or flag_email, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites for the operation itself.

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