Skip to main content
Glama

FranklyMail Agentic Inbox

delete_mailbox_draft

Destructive

Move a user-selected mailbox draft created by this connection to Trash. Never permanently deletes. Pass version and mailboxBlobId as blobId from get_draft. Scheduled messages must first be cancelled in webmail.

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": {
      "draftId": "<draftId>",
      "version": "<version>",
      "blobId": "<blobId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_mailbox_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blobIdYes
draftIdYes
versionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the delete is a move to Trash and 'Never permanently deletes,' softening the destructiveHint, plus a prerequisite for scheduled messages. It does not note recoverability steps, auth requirements, or the return payload, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid added context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its safety guarantee, then the parameter source, then the prerequisite. No wasted wording.

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 destructive 3-required-param tool with no output schema, it covers the key concerns: what happens to the data, where parameters come from, and a blocking prerequisite. Minor gaps remain on version conflict behavior and response, but the essential call guidance is present.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate; it usefully clarifies that blobId is populated from get_draft's mailboxBlobId and that version is passed through, but leaves draftId and version semantics (e.g., optimistic concurrency) unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a user-selected mailbox draft ... to Trash') and scopes which drafts are eligible ('created by this connection'). An agent can distinguish this from update_mailbox_draft or revise_draft, though it doesn't explicitly name those 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?

Provides clear operational guidance: get blobId from get_draft, and cancel scheduled messages in webmail first. It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use this versus update_mailbox_draft or delete_folder, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources