Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
your-mail-mcp

your-mail-mcp

by wildsurfer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

files

Read-only

Find maildir file paths matching a notmuch query, with options to search one account or include junk and trash folders.

Instructions

Return the maildir file paths matching a query.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesnotmuch query, for example from:alice@example.com and date:2026-01-01..2026-06-30. Terms: from: to: subject: tag: folder: attachment: date:, combined with and/or/not. A bare word matches anywhere in the message.
accountNoLimit the search to one account, named as folders and status report it. Omit to search every account at once.
include_excludedNoSet true to also search the junk and trash folders, which are left out by default. Use it only when a message is expected to be there, since mail in those folders is more likely to be hostile.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / account / description
      Added value: +"Limit the search to one account, named as folders and status report it. Omit to search every account at once."
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_excluded / description
      Added value: +"Set true to also search the junk and trash folders, which are left out by default. Use it only when a message is expected to be there, since mail in those folders is more likely to be hostile."
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Added value: +"notmuch query, for example from:alice@example.com and date:2026-01-01..2026-06-30. Terms: from: to: subject: tag: folder: attachment: date:, combined with and/or/not. A bare word matches anywhere in the message."
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world/openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds the useful detail that results are filesystem paths rather than message bodies or IDs, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or what happens with large result sets (idempotentHint is false, which is unexplained).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than being padded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a read-only three-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (paths returned, query-driven). It is still thin on result shape, ordering, and limits, and gives no hint about the cost of broad queries.

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 query syntax, account scoping and include_excluded semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing beyond restating that a query drives the result, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and a specific resource (maildir file paths) plus the matching condition, which distinguishes it from siblings like ids, search, show and text that return other representations. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the many siblings (ids, search, show, text, thread). Nor does it mention the default exclusions (junk/trash) or any prerequisite, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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