Skip to main content
Glama
ronamosa

ProtonMail MCP Server

by ronamosa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

send_email

Compose and send emails through ProtonMail SMTP with CC, BCC, HTML bodies, priority settings, and file attachments.

Instructions

Send an email via ProtonMail SMTP with support for CC, BCC, HTML, priority, and attachments

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoCC recipients, comma-separated
toYesRecipient email address(es), comma-separated
bccNoBCC recipients, comma-separated
bodyYesEmail body content
isHtmlNoWhether body is HTML
replyToNoReply-to email address
subjectYesEmail subject
priorityNoEmail prioritynormal
inReplyToNoRFC 5322 Message-ID of the message being replied to, e.g. '<abc@example.com>'
referencesNoFull Message-ID chain of the conversation, oldest first
attachmentsNoFile attachments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / inReplyTo
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "RFC 5322 Message-ID of the message being replied to, e.g. '<abc@example.com>'",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / references
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Full Message-ID chain of the conversation, oldest first",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive outward-facing write. The description adds that delivery is via ProtonMail SMTP, which is useful context. It omits the irreversibility of sending, any authentication/credential prerequisites, and rate limits — gaps that matter for a real send operation, so it stays at 3.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, transport, and supported features with no filler. Efficient and appropriately sized, though it is arguably terse given an 11-parameter side-effecting 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?

For a side-effecting send tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the feature surface but omits auth/credential prerequisites and the irreversibility of dispatch. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the definition is minimally adequate but not complete for the operation's risk level.

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 11 parameters are documented in the schema (including the RFC 5322 inReplyTo example and attachment encoding). The description only echoes feature names (CC, BCC, HTML, priority, attachments) without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Send an email') plus the transport channel (ProtonMail SMTP) and a list of supported features. An agent immediately knows what it does. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like send_draft, send_test_email, or create_reply_draft, which is the missing piece for 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings send_draft, send_test_email, and create_reply_draft present, the description should say when to compose-and-send directly versus when to draft first or use the test path. Nothing routes the agent among alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools