macos-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mail_save_attachments

Save all attachments from a macOS Mail message to a specified local directory. Automatically creates the directory if it does not exist.

Instructions

Save all attachments from a Mail message to a local directory.

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>",
      "output_dir": "<output_dir>"
    },
    "name": "mail_save_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message_id`	Yes
`output_dir`	Yes	Directory to save files into (absolute or ~ path). Created if missing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting files), error conditions, or permission requirements. The schema mentions directory creation, but the description adds no behavioral context.

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?

The single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly expanded for clarity without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return behavior, error handling, and file naming or size constraints. For a tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, more detail is needed for a complete understanding.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description implies message_id (identifying the message) and output_dir (directory), but adds little beyond the schema's description for output_dir. It does not explain message_id type or format, nor does it clarify that multiple files may be saved. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but falls short.

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 clearly states the action (save), resource (attachments from a Mail message), and target (local directory). It distinguishes from siblings like mail_archive_messages and mail_draft_email, but could be more specific about the scope (e.g., 'all attachments') and the message identification requirement.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., message existence, directory permissions) or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other mail attachment handling tools.

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