Mailbox MCP

List mailboxes

list_mailboxes

Read-onlyIdempotent

List every IMAP folder in the account, with the special-use role of each where the server reports one. selectable: false marks a hierarchy node that organises other folders but cannot itself hold a message: move_email will not file INTO one and delete_email will not read OUT of one, so do not offer either. create_folder DOES accept one as a parent, because creating a folder underneath a placeholder is exactly what turns it into a real folder, and a mail client would do the same.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description substantially exceeds the readOnly/idempotent annotations by defining what selectable:false means and stating exactly how move_email, delete_email, and create_folder treat such nodes. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence; the remaining sentences add necessary, non-redundant behavioral context for downstream tool calls. No filler is present.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a parameterless read-only listing tool, the description fully covers the output semantics an agent needs: it lists all folders, includes roles where available, and explains the actionable meaning of selectable:false. There is no output schema, but the description provides sufficient context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends no space on parameter details.

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 names a specific action ('List every IMAP folder in the account') and a distinguishing detail (special-use roles). This cleanly separates it from sibling email/list tools such as list_emails and list_identities.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer to call this when it needs the folder hierarchy before selecting a destination or source for move_email, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tool references provide downstream behavioral guidance, not route-selection guidance.

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

All Mailbox MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct actions and resource types, and the near-overlapping pairs (archive_email vs move_email, check_bounces vs check_receipts) are explicitly cross-referenced in their descriptions. However, the delivery-status pair genuinely overlaps — both scan inbound mail to answer "did my message get there?" — and archive_email is functionally a role-aware move_email, so an agent could still select the wrong one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Virtually every tool follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear prefix families (check_*, create_*, draft_*, list_*, mark_*, read_*). The single outlier is not_junk, which breaks the mark_* symmetry of its counterpart mark_junk and is not a standard verb-noun construction, though it remains perfectly readable.

Tool Count3/5

31 tools is firmly in the heavy range, though email is a genuinely broad domain spanning send/reply/forward, three draft variants, folder management, flags, junk handling, and diagnostics. Real consolidation was possible — check_bounces and check_receipts could be one delivery-status tool, archive_email is a special case of move_email, and the read-state/flag pairs could take boolean parameters — but each tool has a defensible job.

Completeness4/5

The core email lifecycle is thoroughly covered: send/reply/forward, three draft types plus draft editing, read/search/list/thread, full folder CRUD, move/archive/delete, flags, read state, junk handling, and file-upload intake. Minor gaps exist — there is no permanent-deletion or purge tool, no filter/rules management, and identity/contact maintenance is deliberately out of scope — but real user workflows can be completed without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?