Revdoku

Mailbox Delete Permanently

mailbox_delete_permanently

Destructive

Permanently delete an archived mailbox only when the user explicitly requests it and delete.allowed permits. Use the opaque delete.confirmation value internally; do not ask the user to type an id. Resolve blocked actions in the dashboard.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Optional reason for this action. AI agents should include a short purpose for intentional reads and changes when known. Do not invent a reason or include secrets, file contents, or transcripts.
`account_id`	No	Optional account id from revdoku_status.accounts for this call only. Omit for the credential's default account. Client accounts require explicit Agency authorization; never infer an account from a mailbox id.
`mailbox_id`	Yes	Use the id returned by mailbox_list or mailbox_get.
`confirmation`	Yes	Use delete.confirmation after the user confirms destructive intent.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mailbox`	Yes
`removed_storage_bytes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / mailbox / properties / title
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}
```
AddedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the permission precondition (delete.allowed), that confirmation must be derived from an opaque internal value, and that the user must not be asked to type an id. It stops short of stating the irreversibility/rollback story explicitly beyond the word 'permanently'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences with no waste, front-loading the destructive action and its precondition before the confirmation handling detail. The closing 'Resolve blocked actions in the dashboard' is terse but on-point rather than padding.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description does not need to explain returns. It covers the gating precondition and confirmation handling, though it could be slightly clearer about what 'blocked' means beyond a dashboard redirect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by clarifying how the confirmation parameter is sourced ('use delete.confirmation internally; do not ask the user to type an id'). That adds semantics the schema's one-line description does not fully convey, warranting above-baseline credit.

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 ('Permanently delete an archived mailbox') plus a precondition ('delete.allowed permits'), and the scope ('archived') distinguishes it from siblings like mailbox_archive and mailbox_unarchive. An agent can identify this as the irreversible delete path without opening the 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?

Explicitly gates usage on 'the user explicitly requests it and delete.allowed permits' and routes blocked cases to the dashboard. It gives clear when-to-use conditions but does not name an alternative tool (e.g., mailbox_archive as the non-destructive counterpart), so it stops short of full alternatives coverage.

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

All Revdoku 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.