io.github.p-w-4-z/inbox-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: folder creation, summary stats, folder listing, message listing, marking read, moving, reading, and searching. No overlaps.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_folder, list_messages, mark_read). 'search' is a verb but fits the pattern.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools cover the core inbox management operations without bloat. The count is appropriate for the domain.
Completeness4/5
Covers main actions: folder creation, listing, message reading, marking read, moving, searching. Missing delete/mark unread/send are minor gaps but not critical for the stated purpose.
Average 4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states creation, but doesn't mention idempotency, error behavior (e.g., if folder exists), permissions, or side effects.
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?
Extremely concise with two sentences front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and the example is placed immediately after the parameter name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description is nearly adequate. But missing contextual aspects like prerequisites, error states, or notes about case sensitivity or special characters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains 'folder_name' with an example path, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks details like validation rules or format restrictions.
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?
Clearly states 'Create a new IMAP folder' with a specific verb and resource. The example 'Archive/2024' differentiates it from sibling tools like list_folders or move_message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as checking folder existence with list_folders first or considerations about parent folders. Lacks any contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, or any limitations. The tool is presumably read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?
For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. It could be slightly more specific about the response format, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for such details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by emphasizing 'all available' folders/labels, confirming no filtering or input is needed. This provides clarity beyond the empty 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 the tool lists all available IMAP folders/labels, specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'IMAP folders/labels'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_folder or list_messages, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or get_summary. The description does not include any usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses filter behavior (e.g., 'unread') and limit caps, but does not clarify if listing mutates message states (e.g., marks as read) or other side effects.
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?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
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?
Given three parameters, no required fields, and an existing output schema, the description covers the key inputs well. It could mention return ordering or pagination, but the output schema likely covers return structure.
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 adds crucial meaning: it defines valid filter values, clarifies that folder is an IMAP folder, and specifies the limit range (max 50). This goes well beyond the bare 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 the tool lists messages from a mailbox folder, with specific parameters (folder, filter, limit). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like search or get_summary by focusing on listing.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or get_summary. While the parameter details imply typical usage, no guidance on exclusions or preferred contexts is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that target folder is created if needed, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, no annotations exist, and the description doesn't mention side effects like deletion from source or error handling.
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?
Very concise: one sentence for main action, one for auto-create, then clear args list. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.
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?
Provides enough context for core functionality and auto-creation, but lacks details on success/error response, permissions, or rate limits. Output schema may cover return values, so this is adequate.
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?
The description explains each parameter beyond the schema names: message_ids are IMAP sequence numbers, target_folder is destination, source_folder is source with default INBOX. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 the tool moves messages to a different folder and mentions automatic folder creation. It distinguishes from siblings like create_folder or list_messages.
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?
Implied usage for moving messages, but no explicit when to use or not, nor alternatives mentioned. Lacks prerequisites or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a non-destructive read operation but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like encoding, size limits, or authentication needs. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but provides minimal extra transparency beyond the obvious.
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?
The description is concise with no redundant words, front-loads the main purpose, and uses a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers both parameters well and, given the existence of an output schema, does not need to detail return values. However, it omits discussion of potential encoding or attachments, leaving room for ambiguity.
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?
The description adds key meaning: message_id is an IMAP sequence number from list_messages, and folder specifies the IMAP folder (default INBOX). This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions, compensating for 0% schema coverage.
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 the verb 'read' and the resource 'full body of a specific email', distinguishing it from siblings like list_messages (listing headers) and search.
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?
It explains how to obtain the message_id (from list_messages) and the folder parameter, implying when to use the tool (when you need full email body). It lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly indicates a read-only operation without side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately covers the behavioral context by listing the returned data. It could mention any required authentication or data freshness, but remains sufficient for a simple stats tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 13 words, front-loading the core action and output. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters and an output schema present), the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns. It could hint at the output structure, but the output schema likely covers that. The description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter information. Per guidelines, 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4.
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 the tool retrieves inbox statistics, specifying the exact fields: total messages, unread count, and messages from the last 7 days. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on aggregated data rather than individual message operations.
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 implies use when needing summary statistics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_messages or search. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving room for misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sets the IMAP Seen flag (a write operation), but does not mention any prerequisites, permissions, or side effects (e.g., triggering notifications). This is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description is minimal and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a clear 'Args:' section. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.
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?
Given the simple operation and presence of an output schema (for return values), the description covers the essential inputs and behavior. It does not detail return structure, but that is handled by the output schema. Minor improvement could include noting the effect on message state.
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%, but the description explains that 'message_ids' are IMAP sequence numbers and 'folder' is the IMAP folder with a default of INBOX. This adds meaning beyond the schema's title and type, compensating well for lack of schema description.
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 the verb 'mark' and the resource 'messages as read', explicitly linking to IMAP Seen flag. It is specific and distinguishable from siblings like 'read_message' (which reads content) and 'move_message'.
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?
The description directly states the action and the default folder (INBOX), implying its typical use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches subject and sender only (not body), constrains results up to 50, and defaults to INBOX folder. This is good transparency, though it doesn't mention return format or ordering.
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?
The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a structured argument list. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.
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 described. The description covers purpose, parameters, and key constraints like field scope and result limits. It could mention error handling or authentication, but for a search tool it is sufficiently complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter: query as search term for subject/sender, folder as IMAP folder with default, limit up to 50 with default 20. This adds significant value beyond the schema's names and types.
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 'Search messages by subject or sender', which includes a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_messages by narrowing the scope to subject and sender fields.
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 does not explicitly provide usage guidance or alternatives. It implies usage through its description but lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context relative to siblings like list_messages or read_message.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![inbox-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/p-w-4-z/inbox-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/p-w-4-z/inbox-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![inbox-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/p-w-4-z/inbox-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/p-w-4-z/inbox-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/p-w-4-z/inbox-mcp'

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