Skip to main content
Glama
Wh1isper

MCP Email Server

save_to_mailbox

Compose an email and save it directly to an IMAP folder like Drafts, preserving recipients, attachments, and threading flags for later use, with no SMTP required.

Instructions

Compose an email and save it to an IMAP folder (e.g., Drafts). Shares recipient, body, attachment, and threading parameters with send_email; adds mailbox and flags, and does not support reply_to. Default folder is Drafts with \Draft and \Seen flags. Pure IMAP operation — works without SMTP configuration. An ambiguous APPEND is reported as unknown and is not retried automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoA list of CC email addresses.
bccNoA list of BCC email addresses.
bodyYesThe body of the email.
htmlNoWhether the email body is HTML (True) or plain text (False).
flagsNoIMAP flags to set on the message. Defaults to ['\Draft', '\Seen']. Common flags: '\Draft', '\Seen', '\Flagged'.
mailboxNoThe IMAP folder to save to (e.g., 'Drafts', 'INBOX.Drafts', 'Templates').Drafts
subjectYesThe subject of the email.
recipientsYesA list of recipient email addresses.
referencesNoSpace-separated Message-IDs for the thread chain. Simple IDs may be bare or bracketed; bare IDs gain RFC angle brackets during composition.
attachmentsNoA list of file paths to attach. Relative paths are resolved against the server process working directory; absolute paths are recommended.
in_reply_toNoMessage-ID of the email being replied to. Simple IDs may be bare or bracketed; bare IDs gain RFC angle brackets during composition.
account_nameYesThe name of the email account.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / in_reply_to / description
      Previous value: -"Message-ID of the email being replied to. Enables proper threading in email clients."New value: +"Message-ID of the email being replied to. Simple IDs may be bare or bracketed; bare IDs gain RFC angle brackets during composition."
    • changedInput schema / properties / references / description
      Previous value: -"Space-separated Message-IDs for the thread chain."New value: +"Space-separated Message-IDs for the thread chain. Simple IDs may be bare or bracketed; bare IDs gain RFC angle brackets during composition."
  2. Addedv1.1.1
  3. Removedv1.0.1
  4. Addedv0.10.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: default folder is Drafts with \Draft and \Seen flags, it requires no SMTP configuration, and an ambiguous APPEND is reported as unknown and not retried. No contradiction with 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?

Four sentence, each with a distinct purpose: core action, relationship to sibling, default behavioral details, and error handling. Information is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 all parameters documented in the schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential operational traits: defaults, SMTP independence, and ambiguous APPEND behavior. Minor omissions include folder-creation behavior and permission prerequisites, which are not addressed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meta-level parameter semantics by noting the shared parameter set with send_email, the added mailbox/flags, and the unsupported reply_to, which helps the agent reason about parameter relationships. However, individual parameter syntax is already fully documented in the schema.

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 composes an email and saves it to an IMAP folder, with a concrete example (Drafts). It distinguishes itself from send_email by noting shared parameters, added mailbox/flags, and the lack of reply_to support, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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?

It identifies send_email as the key sibling and explains the difference: this tool adds mailbox and flags, lacks reply_to, and works purely via IMAP without SMTP. This implies the primary use case of creating drafts, but it does not explicitly state 'use when saving a draft' or provide exclusions beyond reply_to.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Wh1isper/mcp-email-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server