email-mcp

move_email

Move an email message to a designated folder. Protected folders like Trash are read-only, preventing moves into or out of them.

Instructions

Move a message to another folder. Protected folders (Trash/Bin/Deleted * by default, plus security.protected_folders) are read-only: nothing can be moved into or out of them — i.e. with the default policy this server cannot delete mail.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>",
      "dest_folder": "<dest_folder>"
    },
    "name": "move_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message_id`	Yes
`dest_folder`	Yes
`account`	No
`folders`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains the constraint about protected folders, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., deletion from source), authorization needs, or reversibility, leaving gaps for a mutation operation.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and a critical constraint. No wasted words, though it could be restructured to include parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description is brief for a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and what happens to the original message, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (message_id, dest_folder, account, folders). It only provides high-level purpose, failing to clarify required inputs or their formatting.

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 'Move a message to another folder,' providing a specific verb and resource. It adds context about protected folders, which distinguishes its functionality from sibling tools like mark_email or get_emails.

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?

The description implies usage by stating protected folders are read-only, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mark_email). No mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

Deploy Server