Skip to main content
Glama
nikolausm

IMAP MCP Server

by nikolausm

imap_reply_to_email

Reply to an email by folder and UID, automatically addressing the original sender, prefixing 'Re:', and preserving threading. Supports reply all.

Instructions

Reply to an existing email identified by folder + uid. Automatically sets the recipient to the original sender, prefixes the subject with "Re:", and preserves threading (In-Reply-To/References). Set replyAll to also include the original recipients. Use this instead of imap_send_email whenever the user is responding to a message already in a mailbox.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYesUID of the email to reply to
bodyNoAlias for 'text' (backward-compat)
htmlNoHTML reply content
textNoPlain text reply content
folderNoFolder containing the original emailINBOX
replyAllNoReply to all recipients
accountIdNoAccount ID (from imap_list_accounts). Optional if accountName is given or only one account is configured.
accountNameNoAccount name instead of accountId. Optional if accountId is given or only one account is configured.
attachmentsNoEmail attachments
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses key behaviors: auto-recipient, subject prefix, threading, replyAll option. No annotations; description handles burden well, though edge cases missing.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Each sentence adds essential information.

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?

Covers core functionality for a reply tool, given no output schema. Could mention that original email is fetched internally, but overall sufficient.

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 covers 100% of parameters; description adds value by explaining replyAll and why no 'to' parameter. Slight improvement over 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 description clearly states it replies to an email by folder+uid, automatically sets recipient, prefixes subject, and preserves threading. It distinguishes from imap_send_email explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly advises using instead of imap_send_email for replies. No when-not-to guidance but sufficient context given sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nikolausm/imap-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server