email_list_foldersList mail folders with their IMAP flags to identify folder types like Sent or Trash.
List mail folders with their IMAP flags (e.g. \Sent, \Trash).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return detail of IMAP flags, enriching behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict any annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then provides a concrete example of the output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description fully conveys what will be returned (folders with IMAP flags). There are no operational details missing, and the annotations cover side effects and idempotency. The description is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing to explain about parameters. The description does not need to compensate for any coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'mail folders', and adds specific detail about IMAP flags with examples (\Sent, \Trash). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like email_list_messages, which operate on messages rather than folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. However, the purpose is unambiguous and the scope is clearly folders, so usage is implied. It could benefit from a note about when to prefer this over email_list_messages, but the domain makes it obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.