ProtonMail MCP Server

get_emails

Read-only

Fetch emails from any folder with pagination controls using limit and offset parameters.

Instructions

Fetch emails from a folder with pagination

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_emails"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of emails to fetch
`folder`	No	Folder name	INBOX
`offset`	No	Pagination offset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds pagination context but does not disclose further behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. The description does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient, though it could benefit from a brief mention of the output without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (e.g., a list of email objects). It does not. For a simple fetch tool, the description is somewhat complete but misses output details. With many sibling tools, additional context would be helpful but not strictly necessary.

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% with each parameter described adequately in the schema. The description adds the phrase 'with pagination' which hints at limit/offset usage but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Fetch emails'), resource ('emails'), and context ('from a folder with pagination'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like search_emails or get_email_by_id by specifying pagination and folder scope.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for folder-based listing with pagination, but lacks guidance on when to prefer this over search_emails or other siblings.

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

Deploy Server