Apple Mail

by yu2001-s

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rename-mailbox

Renames a mailbox folder to a new name, requiring the exact current name for the target account.

Instructions

Use when: renaming an existing mailbox/folder from oldName to newName within an account. Returns: a confirmation naming the old and new mailbox names. Do not use when: creating a new folder (use create-mailbox) or deleting one (use delete-mailbox). Use list-mailboxes to confirm the current name. Safety: renames a real folder in the mail account — confirm oldName matches exactly (case-sensitive) before calling.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	No	Account containing the mailbox
`newName`	Yes
`oldName`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`newName`	No
`oldName`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool renames a real folder, warns about case-sensitivity, and describes the return value. However, it does not mention if the operation is reversible or any permission requirements.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded key info. It is slightly verbose but every sentence provides value, making it efficient without being overly terse.

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?

With 3 parameters and low schema coverage, the description compensates well by covering usage, safety, and output. It references sibling tools and provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, though the return format is only briefly mentioned.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'account' has description). The description adds crucial semantics: oldName and newName are required, case-sensitive matching is important, and the tool operates 'within an account'. However, it does not explain the 'account' parameter's role in detail.

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 clearly states the tool renames an existing mailbox from oldName to newName and explicitly distinguishes it from create-mailbox and delete-mailbox, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' conditions, along with a recommendation to use list-mailboxes first, offering excellent guidance on when to employ this tool versus alternatives.

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

Deploy Server