Apple Mail MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Email Attachments

list_email_attachments

Search emails by subject keyword in a specific Apple Mail account and list their attachments, helping you locate files without opening every message.

Instructions

List attachments for emails matching a subject keyword.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	Yes	Account name (e.g., "Gmail", "Work", "Personal")
`max_results`	No	Maximum number of matching emails to check (default: 1)
`subject_keyword`	Yes	Keyword to search for in email subjects

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed11 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 / max_results / description
```
Added value: +"Maximum number of matching emails to check (default: 1)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / max_results / title
```
Removed value: -"Max Results"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / subject_keyword / description
```
Added value: +"Keyword to search for in email subjects"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / subject_keyword / title
```
Removed value: -"Subject Keyword"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"list_email_attachmentsArguments"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
```
Removed value: -"Result"
```
- removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"list_email_attachmentsOutput"
```
- addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Added value: +true
```
First observedv3.1.0Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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 burden, but it only says it lists attachments. It omits whether the operation is read-only (though 'List' implies it), how max_results bounds the number of matching emails checked, what happens when no email matches, and whether any access permissions are required.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase (list, attachments, subject keyword) contributes to tool selection.

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?

For a simple listing tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description identifies the resource and filter sufficiently. It could still say more about max_results' effect, but the structured fields cover the call mechanics.

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 account, subject_keyword, and max_results are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the subject_keyword filter but adds no syntax, default, or constraint beyond the schema, giving the baseline 3.

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 ('List') and resource ('attachments') plus the filtering condition ('emails matching a subject keyword'), so the agent can distinguish it from save_email_attachment or search_emails. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides no when-to-use or when-not guidance and does not mention alternatives such as search_emails or get_email_source. The subject-keyword filter implies a condition but does not help an agent choose this tool over siblings.

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