Apple Mail MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Statistics

get_statistics

Analyze Apple Mail activity by account, sender, or mailbox to see email volume and trends over a chosen period. Track inbox patterns, identify top senders, and break down mailbox usage.

Instructions

Get comprehensive email statistics and analytics.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No	Analysis scope: "account_overview", "sender_stats", "mailbox_breakdown"	account_overview
`sender`	No	Specific sender for "sender_stats" scope
`account`	Yes	Account name (e.g., "Gmail", "Work")
`mailbox`	No	Specific mailbox for "mailbox_breakdown" scope
`days_back`	No	Number of days to analyze (default: 30, 0 = all time)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed15 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\")"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / account / title
```
Removed value: -"Account"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / days_back / description
```
Added value: +"Number of days to analyze (default: 30, 0 = all time)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / days_back / title
```
Removed value: -"Days Back"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / mailbox / description
```
Added value: +"Specific mailbox for \"mailbox_breakdown\" scope"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / mailbox / title
```
Removed value: -"Mailbox"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / scope / description
```
Added value: +"Analysis scope: \"account_overview\", \"sender_stats\", \"mailbox_breakdown\""
```
- removedInput schema / properties / scope / title
```
Removed value: -"Scope"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / sender / description
```
Added value: +"Specific sender for \"sender_stats\" scope"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / sender / title
```
Removed value: -"Sender"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"get_statisticsArguments"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
```
Removed value: -"Result"
```
- removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"get_statisticsOutput"
```
- addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Added value: +true
```
First observedv3.1.0Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about being read-only, permission/account requirements, rate limits, or cost of a wide days_back window. "Get" weakly implies a safe read, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise – brevity comes at the cost of useful detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is fully documented. However, with no annotations and no sibling differentiation among several analytics tools, the definition is only minimally complete for correct tool selection.

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 the schema already documents scope, sender, mailbox, and days_back with defaults and enum-like values. The description adds nothing about the interplay between scope and the optional sender/mailbox params, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Get comprehensive email statistics and analytics" names a verb and resource, but "comprehensive" is vague about what is actually returned. It does not distinguish this tool from closely overlapping siblings such as get_inbox_overview, inbox_dashboard, get_top_senders, or get_awaiting_reply, so an agent cannot tell which analytics tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the scope modes, and no routing to or away from sibling analytics tools. The agent is left to infer that this is for aggregate stats rather than per-message or per-mailbox data.

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