Skip to main content
Glama
veluralabs

Zoho Mail MCP

by veluralabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Zoho Mail MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • anymail-mcp

      DeamonDev888
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Connects any IMAP/SMTP mailbox to AI agents via MCP, enabling email read, search, send, reply, and management through natural language.
      6 npm
      MIT

    • Email MCP Server

      chinmay4382
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that enables AI models to read, search, and send emails via IMAP and SMTP protocols. It supports various providers like Gmail and Outlook, allowing for tasks such as retrieving unread messages, searching by sender, and managing mailbox folders.
      -

    • email-mcp-server

      pp123ys
      F
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables external AI agents to read, send, and manage email over IMAP/SMTP via MCP, including inbox listing, search, drafts, scheduled/batch sending, and operations like reply, archive, and labels.
      30
      3
      -

    • mcp-imap-smtp

      ragavtech
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Connects MCP-compatible AI assistants to any IMAP/SMTP mailbox, enabling email search, reading, folder management, and sending with automatic saving to Sent.
      1
      MIT

    • slab-email

      martin2844
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Headless email connector that lets AI agents read, search, draft, and send emails across multiple providers (Proton, IMAP/SMTP, Gmail) via REST and MCP tools, with scoped permissions and encrypted credential storage.
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3.1/5.0

    Scored across 33 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    The set includes parallel email-level and thread-level tools (e.g., zoho_mark_emails_read vs zoho_mark_threads_read, zoho_move_emails vs zoho_move_threads). The email-level tools explicitly accept either messageId or threadId, making the thread-specific tools largely redundant and creating ambiguity about which tool to use when a threadId is available. While descriptions help distinguish some other tools (content vs metadata vs headers), this overlap is a notable boundary issue.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share a consistent zoho_ prefix and snake_case convention, mostly following a verb_noun or verb_noun_state pattern. Minor inconsistencies exist in singular/plural forms (e.g., zoho_get_accounts vs zoho_get_account, zoho_list_folders vs zoho_get_folder), but the overall naming is predictable and readable.

    Tool Count2/5

    With 33 tools, the server is far above the typical sweet spot and includes many redundant email/thread pairs that could be consolidated with a parameter. This inflates the surface unnecessarily, making the toolset feel heavy and harder to navigate than the domain requires.

    Completeness4/5

    Core email operations—send, reply, save draft, search, attachments, read/unread, move, spam, archive, delete—are well covered. However, notable gaps remain in folder and label management (no create/delete folder or add-label tools) and there is no direct send-draft operation; agents can work around these but the surface is not fully complete.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources