Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-for-apple-mail

mcp-for-apple-mail

by shaack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Anhang speichern

save_attachment

Save the first matching PDF attachment from an email found by subject keyword to a specified destination folder, filtering out non-PDF files like AGB, ads, XML, and images.

Instructions

Speichert den ersten passenden PDF-Anhang einer über den Betreff gefundenen Nachricht. Ein Anhang passt nur, wenn sein Name attKey enthält und auf .pdf endet (sortiert AGB, Werbe-PDFs, XML und Bilder aus). Der Zielordner wird angelegt.

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": {
      "subjKey": "<subjKey>",
      "attKey": "<attKey>",
      "destPath": "<destPath>"
    },
    "name": "save_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attKeyYesTeilstring, der im Anhangnamen vorkommen muss
subjKeyYesTeilstring, der im Betreff vorkommen muss
destPathYesAbsoluter Zielpfad, z. B. /path/to/2026-04/2026-04-14 Anbieter Rechnung.pdf
mailboxesNoZu durchsuchende Mailboxen. Vorgabe wie bei search_messages.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that it creates the destination folder ('Der Zielordner wird angelegt') and that it saves only the first matching attachment, plus the sorting/exclusion behavior. However, it doesn't disclose write semantics, required permissions, or side effects beyond folder creation. It's a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, so a 3 is appropriate—decent but not rich.

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?

Three tight sentences, all substantive. First sentence states the core action, second explains matching and exclusions, third states folder creation. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains matching, exclusions, and folder creation. It could add a return-value note or failure behavior (e.g., what happens if no attachment matches), but given the constraints this is solid.

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 the schema documents all four parameters. The description adds matching semantics for attKey (contains, .pdf suffix) and subjKey (Betreff match). The mailboxes parameter says 'Vorgabe wie bei search_messages' deferring to sibling. This adds some value beyond schema but leans on the schema's full coverage.

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 has a specific verb+resource ('Speichert den ersten passenden PDF-Anhang') and clearly specifies the object target ('einer über den Betreff gefundenen Nachricht'). It distinguishes from siblings by its unique purpose (attachment saving vs. messaging/search operations), and even names the sibling search_messages. Very clear.

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 explains the matching criteria precisely: attachment must contain attKey and end in .pdf, explicitly excluding AGB, promotional PDFs, XML, and images. It names the alternative search_messages for the mailbox lookup default. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool relative to get_message_body or flag_message (though the distinction is somewhat obvious).

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