Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
io.github.p-w-4-z/inbox-mcp

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

by p-w-4-z
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

move_message

Move selected email messages to a target folder, creating the folder automatically if it does not exist.

Instructions

Move one or more messages to a different folder. Creates the target folder if needed.

Args: message_ids: List of IMAP sequence numbers to move target_folder: Destination IMAP folder source_folder: Source IMAP folder (default: INBOX)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "message_ids": "<message_ids>",
      "target_folder": "<target_folder>"
    },
    "name": "move_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
message_idsYes
target_folderYes
source_folderNoINBOX

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools