mail-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

imap_search_messages

Search email messages in a mailbox by sender, recipient, subject, date, unread status, or full-text query. Use cursor pagination to page through results.

Instructions

Search messages with cursor pagination

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No	Filter by To header
`from`	No	Filter by From header
`limit`	No	Maximum messages to return (1..50, default 10)
`query`	No	Full-text search query
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor from previous search result
`mailbox`	Yes	Mailbox to search (e.g., `INBOX`, `Sent`, `Archive`)
`subject`	No	Filter by Subject header
`end_date`	No	Filter to messages before this date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`last_days`	No	Filter to messages from last N days
`account_id`	No	Account identifier (defaults to `"default"`)	default
`start_date`	No	Filter to messages on or after this date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`unread_only`	No	Filter to unread messages only
`include_snippet`	No	Include subject snippet in results
`snippet_max_chars`	No	Maximum snippet length (50..500, requires `include_snippet=true`)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Tool-specific data payload
`meta`	Yes	Execution metadata (timestamp, duration)
`summary`	Yes	Human-readable summary of the operation outcome

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.12Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It only mentions cursor pagination; it does not disclose read-only semantics, result ordering, default limits, or what the cursor means for follow-up calls.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. Concise, though arguably too terse for a multi-criteria search tool.

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?

With 14 parametersiki and cursor pagination, the 5-word description leaves out search semantics, filter combinations, result ordering, and cursor behavior. Output schema may cover return values but not calling context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Search messages') and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail ('cursor pagination'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools, but the core purpose is clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, how filters combine, or how pagination should be driven. The description is purely declarative.

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