Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
protonmail-mcp

protonmail-mcp

by mhbxyz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_status

Read-only

Retrieve total and unread message counts for one folder or all selectable folders without fetching messages.

Instructions

Counts of total and unread messages per folder, without fetching messages.

Args: folder: A single folder name, or omit to get every selectable folder.

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": "get_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folderNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. 'Without fetching messages' usefully signals a lightweight operation that avoids downloading bodies, but there is no mention of performance, caching, or failure modes for a non-selectable folder.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a single tight Args line; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the one parameter's behavior. It is nearly complete for this simple tool, only lacking explicit routing to sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single folder parameter and does so clearly: a single folder name, or omit for all selectable folders. This adds real semantics (singular name, null means 'every selectable folder') that the bare string/null schema does not convey.

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 ('counts of total and unread messages per folder') and adds the scoping qualifier 'without fetching messages', which implicitly separates it from list_emails/read_email. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of 5.

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 Args note tells the agent that omitting the folder returns every selectable folder, which implies efficient bulk use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. use this instead of list_emails to get counts cheaply).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools