Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apple-mail-mcp-server

apple-mail-mcp-server

by wylieswanson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_mailboxes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all mailboxes for a specified email account to organize and navigate your messages.

Instructions

List all mailboxes for an account.

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": {
      "account": "<account>"
    },
    "name": "list_mailboxes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountYesMail.app account display name (e.g., "Gmail", "iCloud") or UUID (from list_accounts). Names are convenient but unstable across renames; UUIDs are stable.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the scope ('all') and no additional behavioral detail, which is acceptable for a simple list operation but adds little beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the low complexity, full schema coverage, existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. A bit more guidance about prerequisites could push it higher, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, and the account parameter is well documented with guidance on display names vs UUIDs and stability. The tool description itself does not add parameter detail, but the schema fully handles it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all mailboxes') with a clear scope ('for an account'). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_accounts and the mailbox mutation tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly conveys when the tool is useful: when all mailboxes for a particular account are needed. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but no direct alternative for listing mailboxes exists among siblings, so the context is sufficiently clear.

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