Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proton-mail-mcp

proton-mail-mcp

by sethbang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

list_attachments

Read-onlyIdempotent

List attachment metadata for a message to get filenames, content types, and sizes without downloading the body. Use returned part numbers to download attachments later.

Instructions

List attachment metadata for a message without downloading the body. Returns part numbers, filenames, content types, and sizes — use these with download_attachment to fetch the content.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "uid": "<uid>"
    },
    "name": "list_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYesMessage UID (use list_messages or search_messages to find UIDs)
folderNoFolder containing the message (default: INBOX)INBOX

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral insight by stating it does not download the body and lists the returned metadata fields, enhancing transparency.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a brief explanation of output and usage. No extraneous content.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately lists return fields (part numbers, filenames, content types, sizes) and references download_attachment. It is complete for the tool's simple purpose.

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%, with both parameters well-documented. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, only referencing them implicitly.

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 lists attachment metadata without downloading the body, specifying the resource (attachments for a message) and action (list). It distinguishes from download_attachment by noting it does not fetch content.

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?

The description explicitly mentions using the output with download_attachment, providing a clear usage flow. It implicitly says to use this tool before download, but does not explicitly exclude other uses.

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