Apple Mail MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Awaiting Reply

get_awaiting_reply

Find sent emails that haven't received a reply yet by cross-referencing Sent and Inbox mailboxes, so you can track follow-ups and pending responses.

Instructions

Find sent emails that haven't received a reply yet.

Scans the Sent mailbox for outgoing emails and cross-references with the Inbox to see if a reply (matching subject) was received from the same recipient. Useful for follow-up tracking.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	Yes	Account name (e.g., "Gmail", "Work", "Personal")
`days_back`	No	How many days back to check sent emails (default: 7, 0 = all time)
`max_results`	No	Maximum results to return (default: 20)
`exclude_noreply`	No	Skip emails sent to noreply/no-reply addresses (default: True)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed13 schema fields changedv3.2.1Oct 20, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / account / description
```
Added value: +"Account name (e.g., \"Gmail\", \"Work\", \"Personal\")"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / account / title
```
Removed value: -"Account"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / days_back / description
```
Added value: +"How many days back to check sent emails (default: 7, 0 = all time)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / days_back / title
```
Removed value: -"Days Back"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / exclude_noreply / description
```
Added value: +"Skip emails sent to noreply/no-reply addresses (default: True)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / exclude_noreply / title
```
Removed value: -"Exclude Noreply"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / max_results / description
```
Added value: +"Maximum results to return (default: 20)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / max_results / title
```
Removed value: -"Max Results"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"get_awaiting_replyArguments"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
```
Removed value: -"Result"
```
- removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"get_awaiting_replyOutput"
```
- addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Added value: +true
```
First observedv3.1.0Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the mechanism (scan Sent, cross-reference Inbox, match subject from the same recipient), which tells the agent how results are derived. It stops short of noting limitations of subject-matching (false positives/negatives) or that it is a read-only operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the mechanism. Every sentence contributes; it could be marginally tighter but there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema fully covers parameters. The description is complete enough to call the tool correctly, with the only real gap being sibling differentiation against get_needs_response.

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 100%, so all four parameters (account, days_back, max_results, exclude_noreply) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Find sent emails that haven't received a reply yet') and explains the underlying scan. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-twin sibling 'get_needs_response', leaving the agent unable to tell which to pick without opening both schemas.

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?

'Useful for follow-up tracking' implies a use case but gives no explicit when/when-not conditions and names no alternative, despite the existence of the closely related 'get_needs_response' and 'search_emails' siblings. Usage is left to inference.

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