Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gws-mcp__gmail_trash_thread

Destructive

Moves a whole Gmail conversation to Trash: every message in the thread, in one call. Takes the thread ID. The messages leave the inbox and every other label view and stay in Trash, where Gmail deletes them for good after 30 days; gmail_untrash_thread restores them before then. Returns the thread ID and, for each message in it, the message ID and whether it is now in Trash.

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": {
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>"
    },
    "name": "gws-mcp__gmail_trash_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
thread_idYesThe ID of the thread to move to Trash, as gmail_search, gmail_list and gmail_read return it (threadId).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by explaining the actual effect (messages leave the inbox and every label view, remain in Trash, and Gmail permanently deletes them after 30 days) plus the exact recovery window via gmail_untrash_thread. It also spells out the return payload, so the agent knows the outcome is verifiable per message.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then consequences and reversibility, then return shape. No boilerplate or redundancy; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, retention/destruction timing, recovery route, and return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the thread_id property already explains it is the threadId returned by gmail_search, gmail_list and gmail_read. The description only restates 'Takes the thread ID' without adding format or sourcing detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Moves a whole Gmail conversation to Trash') and immediately scopes it to 'every message in the thread, in one call', which implicitly separates it from the single-message gmail_trash sibling. An agent can tell exactly what unit of work this tool operates on.

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 'whole Gmail conversation... every message in the thread, in one call' signals when this is preferred over message-level trashing, and it names gmail_untrash_thread as the reversal path. It stops short of an explicit 'use gmail_trash for a single message' exclusion, so routing is strongly implied rather than spelled out.

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

All DataToRAG 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