proton-mail-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_folders

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve email folders and their message counts. Counts are cached; use folder_stats for exact counts.

Instructions

List available email folders/mailboxes with message counts. The per-folder counts come from a cached IMAP STATUS that Proton Mail Bridge can serve stale — do NOT treat them as authoritative for decisions like "is this folder empty before deleting". Use count_messages or folder_stats (both SELECT+SEARCH the live mailbox) when you need an exact count.

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": "list_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds critical behavioral context: counts are stale/cached from IMAP STATUS. This warns agents about potential inaccuracy, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose clearly, second provides a crucial caveat and alternatives. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, the nature of its output (folder names with counts), and an important limitation (stale counts). No output schema is needed for this simple case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and no parameter info is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate.

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 email folders/mailboxes with message counts. It uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource, and the warning about staleness differentiates it from siblings like count_messages and folder_stats.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (listing folders with counts) and when not to rely on it (for authoritative decisions). It names alternatives (count_messages, folder_stats) for exact counts, providing clear guidance.

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