MinuteMail

Bulk delete attachments

attachments.delete_bulk

Destructive

Delete several attachments of one email at once.

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": {
      "mailboxId": "<mailboxId>",
      "mailId": "<mailId>",
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "attachments.delete_bulk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	Yes	Attachment IDs to delete
`mailId`	Yes	Mail ID
`mailboxId`	Yes	Mailbox ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`http_status`	Yes	HTTP status of the API response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful scope context: the deleted attachments all belong to one email. It does not detail irreversibility or failure behavior, but annotations and schema cover the core safety profile.

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?

A single, unambiguous sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 comprehensive annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is enough for an agent to use the tool correctly. It slightly underspecifies behavior on partial failure, but that is not critical for a straightforward bulk delete.

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% and all three parameters (mailboxId, mailId, ids) are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond indicating that multiple ids can be deleted, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), the resource ('attachments of one email'), and the bulk aspect ('several... at once'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling attachments.delete, which handles a single attachment.

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 phrase 'several attachments of one email at once' clearly implies bulk deletion use, and the sibling tool attachments.delete indicates the singular alternative. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name the alternative.

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

All MinuteMail tools Inspect

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

Need Help?