Apple Mail MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Needs Response

get_needs_response

Scans an Apple Mail account for unread messages that likely need a reply, filtering out newsletters, automated emails, and noreply senders while prioritizing direct questions sent to you.

Instructions

Identify unread emails that likely need a response from you.

Filters out newsletters, automated emails, and noreply senders. Prioritises direct emails (To: you) with question marks as likely needing a reply.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	Yes	Account name (e.g., "Gmail", "Work", "Personal")
`mailbox`	No	Mailbox to scan (default: "INBOX")	INBOX
`days_back`	No	How many days back to look (default: 7)
`max_results`	No	Maximum results to return (default: 20)

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 look (default: 7)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / days_back / title
```
Removed value: -"Days Back"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / mailbox / description
```
Added value: +"Mailbox to scan (default: \"INBOX\")"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / mailbox / title
```
Removed value: -"Mailbox"
```
- 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_needs_responseArguments"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
```
Removed value: -"Result"
```
- removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"get_needs_responseOutput"
```
- addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Added value: +true
```
First observedv3.1.0Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering logic and prioritisation heuristic, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only or mention authentication, rate limits, 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by filtering and prioritisation details. No sentence feels wasted, though the structure could be slightly tighter.

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 are covered. The description provides enough context about the logic to call the tool correctly, but it omits whether the operation is read-only or if it has any side effects, which would be valuable given no annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (account, mailbox, days_back, max_results) are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable when the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 clearly states the verb (identify) and the resource (unread emails needing a response), and implies a specific filtering heuristic. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like get_awaiting_reply, which an agent might otherwise consider.

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?

It explains the filtering and prioritisation criteria (excludes newsletters/automated/noreply, prioritises direct emails with question marks), which gives some implied usage context. But it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_emails or get_awaiting_reply, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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