Skip to main content
Glama
sethbang

proton-mail-mcp

reply_all_email

Reply to all recipients of an email (sender, original To, and CC) with proper threading, excluding your own address. Use dry run to preview recipients before sending.

Instructions

Reply to all recipients of an email (sender + original TO + original CC), excluding the authenticated user. Sends with proper threading headers. Equivalent to reply_email with replyAll: true, exposed as a dedicated tool for discoverability. Response leads with [sent-copy:verified|unverified]; like reply_email, the [reply-to:*] tokens do not apply because there's no replyTo parameter to verify.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYesUID of the message to reply to
folderNoFolder containing the original message (default: INBOX)INBOX
bodyNoReply body content. Required unless `markdownBody`.
isHtmlNoWhether the body contains HTML content
markdownBodyNoMarkdown source for the reply — mutually exclusive with `body`/`isHtml`.
sanitizeHtmlNoRun the HTML body through a conservative allowlist (strips scripts, event handlers, inline styles, remote `<img>` beacons). **Defaults to true as of v1.0.0**; pass `false` to preserve full-fidelity HTML. No-op on plain-text bodies.
ccNoAdditional CC recipients beyond the original to+cc, separated by commas
bccNoBCC recipients, separated by commas
includeQuoteNoInclude quoted original message below reply body (default: true)
dryRunNoIf true, resolve the full reply-all recipient fan-out (sender + original To + CC, minus self) WITHOUT sending — returns a preview so you can confirm exactly who would receive the reply. Strongly recommended before a live reply-all on unfamiliar mail.
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds behavioral details: it sends with proper threading headers, the response leads with [sent-copy:verified|unverified], and reply-to tokens don't apply. No contradiction with 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?

The description is brief (two sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and high schema coverage, the description covers key behavioral aspects (reply-all, threading, response format, equivalence to reply_email, and lack of reply-to tokens). It is complete for an agent to understand usage.

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 the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. It mentions equivalence to reply_email with replyAll: true, which provides context but does not add new meaning to individual parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 replies to all recipients (sender + original TO + original CC) excluding the authenticated user, and sends with proper threading headers. It distinguishes itself from reply_email by being a dedicated tool for reply-all, and mentions its equivalence to reply_email with replyAll: true.

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 provides context by noting equivalence to reply_email with replyAll: true, implying use when replying to all. It also explains that [reply-to:*] tokens do not apply, but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like forward_email.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sethbang/proton-mail-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server