Skip to main content
Glama
sfls1397

Apple Tools MCP

by sfls1397
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

mail_reply

Reply to an existing email in Apple Mail, adding your text above the quoted original. Optionally reply to all recipients, save as a draft, or preview before sending.

Instructions

Reply to an existing email. The reply text is pasted above the quoted original in a visible Mail window (System Events focus on the message body, then Command-Up and clipboard paste — not Cmd-A, which would replace the quote; AppleScript content is not set because Mail 16 leaves it empty). reply_all=true fans out to every original recipient and requires confirm=true. A real send is verified in Sent/Outbox before success. A send hang is a timeout, not TCC, unless Mail reports -1743/-10004; hang recover uses In-Reply-To. Clients must Sent-check before retrying a timed-out send.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesReply text, prepended above the quoted original via System Events paste (required). AppleScript content is not set.
confirmNoRequired for deletes and multi-recipient sends; without it the call only previews
dry_runNoPreview only: report what would happen and change nothing (default false)
file_pathNoAlternative to message_id: the .emlx file_path from mail_search, resolved to its Message-ID
reply_allNoReply to all original recipients (default false)
message_idNoRFC822 Message-ID of the email (from mail_search / mail_read results)
save_as_draftNoSave the reply to Drafts instead of sending (default false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.0.8

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it does so richly: paste-above-quote mechanics, reply_all fan-out requiring confirm, real-send verification in Sent/Outbox, the timeout-vs-TCC distinction, error codes -1743/-10004, and hang recovery via In-Reply-To. This is unusually deep behavioral disclosure.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries behavioral content, though the parenthetical paste mechanics (System Events focus, Command-Up vs Cmd-A, Mail 16 detail) are deeply implementation-specific and verge on over-specification for a tool-selection context.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry behavior and result semantics, and it does - explaining that success is verified in Sent/Outbox and how timeouts should be handled. Remaining detail (draft vs send distinctions) is left to the fully-covered schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating the coupling that reply_all=true requires confirm=true and that body is pasted rather than set via AppleScript, adding meaning the schema alone doesn't convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Reply to an existing email'), clearly distinct from mail_send, mail_draft, and mail_forward by the reply semantic. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'reply to an existing email' and by the confirm/reply_all coupling, but the description never states when to pick this over mail_send or mail_draft, nor any precondition for a valid reply (e.g. must have a resolvable Message-ID). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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