Skip to main content
Glama

Mailbox MCP

by com.mailbox-mcp.mcp

Delete a folder

delete_folder
Destructive

Delete an EMPTY folder, and unsubscribe it so it does not linger as a phantom in the user's mail client. REFUSES a folder that still holds messages, and says how many - unlike delete_email there is no Trash to recover them from, so move them elsewhere with move_email or send them to Trash with delete_email first, then delete the empty folder. Also refuses a folder that has sub-folders inside it, refuses INBOX, and refuses Sent, Drafts, Trash, Junk and Archive. Read the refusal and tell the user what it says.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe folder to delete, e.g. "Old projects".

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that deleted folders are not recoverable, that the folder is unsubscribed to avoid phantom mail clients, and that refusals include the message count for non-empty folders. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence contributes critical operational information: empty-folder requirement, unsubscribe behavior, no-Trash consequence, refusal conditions, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the most important constraint and avoids filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers success conditions, failure/refusal conditions, and fallback actions. It even instructs the agent to read and relay the refusal message, which is essential for correct user-facing behavior.

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?

The single parameter 'name' is fully documented in the schema with a clear example. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool deletes an EMPTY folder and unsubscribes it, and explicitly distinguishes it from delete_email by noting there is no Trash recovery. It also enumerates exactly what it refuses to delete, leaving no ambiguity about the operation's scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance and names alternatives: move_email or delete_email should be used first if the folder has messages, and then delete_folder for the empty folder. It also lists refusal conditions (sub-folders, INBOX, system folders), which helps the agent decide whether this tool is appropriate.

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

All Mailbox MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct actions, but there are several close pairs that require careful reading: check_bounces vs check_receipts, list_emails vs search_emails, and the send/reply/forward vs draft_email/draft_reply/draft_forward families. The descriptions are strong enough that a careful agent can disambiguate, but the boundaries are not always obvious from the tool names alone.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool uses a consistent snake_case verb_noun convention, such as check_bounces, list_mailboxes, send_email, and update_draft. Related operations use parallel forms like mark_read/mark_unread and flag_email/unflag_email, making the naming predictable and coherent.

Tool Count2/5

With 28 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where a tool set starts to feel too heavy. Email is a broad domain and many tools are individually justified, but the surface could be consolidated, especially the draft_forward/draft_reply/draft_email and send_email/reply_email/forward_email variants.

Completeness4/5

The core email lifecycle is thoroughly covered: send, read, search, move, delete, drafts, replies, forwards, folders, flags, attachments, upload links, contacts, identities, deliverability, bounces, and receipts. The main gap is that permanent deletion is referenced as a separate operation but no such tool is actually provided, and contact/identity management is effectively read-only.

Resources