Apple Mail MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Top Senders

get_top_senders

Analyse a mailbox to find frequent senders; use results to identify key contacts, filter high-volume senders, or unsubscribe from newsletters.

Instructions

Analyse a mailbox to find the most frequent senders.

Useful for identifying key contacts, high-volume senders to filter, or newsletter sources to unsubscribe from.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top_n`	No	Number of top senders to return (default: 10)
`account`	Yes	Account name (e.g., "Gmail", "Work", "Personal")
`mailbox`	No	Mailbox to analyse (default: "INBOX")	INBOX
`days_back`	No	How many days back to look (default: 30, 0 = all time)
`group_by_domain`	No	Group results by domain instead of individual sender (default: False)

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\", \"Personal\")"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / account / title
```
Removed value: -"Account"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / days_back / description
```
Added value: +"How many days back to look (default: 30, 0 = all time)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / days_back / title
```
Removed value: -"Days Back"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / group_by_domain / description
```
Added value: +"Group results by domain instead of individual sender (default: False)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / group_by_domain / title
```
Removed value: -"Group By Domain"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / mailbox / description
```
Added value: +"Mailbox to analyse (default: \"INBOX\")"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / mailbox / title
```
Removed value: -"Mailbox"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / top_n / description
```
Added value: +"Number of top senders to return (default: 10)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / top_n / title
```
Removed value: -"Top N"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"get_top_sendersArguments"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
```
Removed value: -"Result"
```
- removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"get_top_sendersOutput"
```
- addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Added value: +true
```
First observedv3.1.0Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only implies a read ("analyse") without stating read-only safety, permission/auth requirements, or any rate/scope constraints. The use-case framing adds context but no behavioral traits beyond what the name already suggests.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and use cases as supporting detail. No filler; sized appropriately for a straightforward analysis tool.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and all params are documented, so the description only needs to add behavioral framing. It does not deliver that (no read-only note, no scoping caveats), leaving the definition minimally viable for a no-annotation tool.

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 five parameters (top_n, account, mailbox, days_back, group_by_domain) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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?

States a specific verb (analyse) and resource (mailbox senders) with a clear outcome: the most frequent senders. It's distinguishable from siblings like search_emails or get_statistics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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?

Provides concrete use cases: identifying key contacts, finding high-volume senders to filter, and locating newsletters to unsubscribe from. This is clear when-to-use context, but it names no alternatives or conditions that would select a different tool.

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