Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Multi Mail

by co.lumman
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Discard a draft

drafts_delete
Destructive

Move a draft to the bin, where its provider keeps it until its own retention ends it: threads_untrash with the messageId this answers and scope message brings it back as a draft. Only a draft not yet sent moves: a message already sent or received, or one a send through Lumman already named, is refused, and nothing already sent is touched.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe id a draft tool answered, or the draftId a search or a read answered.
mailboxYesThe mailbox's name or its email address.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
discardedYes
messageIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / messageId
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "discarded"
-]New value: +[
+  "discarded",
+  "messageId"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower — yet the description adds real behavioral context: the draft goes to the provider bin, remains under provider retention, is restorable to a draft via threads_untrash with the returned messageId, and is refused for already-sent messages. That is precisely the mutation detail an agent cannot get from the annotation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The action is correctly front-loaded in the first clause, but the remainder is a dense colon-and-dash chain that fuses the restore path, the retention caveat, and the refusal rules into one long sentence. Every fact is relevant, yet the packing makes the restore instructions easy to misread.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what happens to the object, when the call is refused, and how to undo it. The one soft spot is the unexplained `messageId` reference, which is never tied back to this tool's returned id.

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 coverage is 100%, so both `id` and `mailbox` are already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add syntax or format guidance for either parameter; its only reference is `messageId`, which is not a parameter of this tool and could momentarily confuse an agent about what to pass.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "Move a draft to the bin." It also names the fallback/sibling mechanism (threads_untrash) and the scope value needed, so an agent can separate this from threads_trash or drafts_update without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit eligibility rules are given: only a draft not yet sent moves; sent or received messages are refused, and a message already named by a send through Lumman is refused too. It also tells the agent how to reverse the action. What's missing is a direct routing statement against nearby siblings such as drafts_update or threads_trash.

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

All Multi Mail toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources