inbox_deleteDelete an inbox and everything delivered to it. The URL stops accepting requests immediately. Inboxes also delete themselves once unpolled past their expiry, so this is only for tearing down early.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | The read token returned by inbox_create. | |
| inbox_id | Yes | The inbox id returned by inbox_create. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: immediate URL stop, deletion of delivered content, and self-expiry. It doesn't explicitly mention irreversibility, but the destructive language implies it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concrete consequence and a usage qualifier. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter delete operation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, destruction semantics, and timing. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions ('The read token returned by inbox_create' and 'The inbox id returned by inbox_create'). The description adds no new parameter-level information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'inbox', and specifies the scope: 'everything delivered to it'. It also adds a concrete behavioral detail ('URL stops accepting requests immediately') that distinguishes this from inbox_poll or inbox_create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly names the alternative: 'Inboxes also delete themselves once unpolled past their expiry', and frames the tool as 'only for tearing down early'. This gives clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a unique, clearly defined purpose (counters, cron, DNS, email, fixtures, webhooks, KV, locks, name checks, regex, timers, timezone, URL checks). There is no functional overlap; even closely related tools like timer_schedule and cron_next are clearly separated by descriptions.
The dominant naming pattern is <resource>_<action> (e.g., inbox_create, kv_get, lock_acquire, tz_convert). A few tools deviate, such as counter_next and cron_next (resource_qualifier), fixture_rows (resource_noun), and request_tool (verb_noun), but these are minor and do not obscure the overall pattern.
At 24 tools, the server exceeds the typical 3-15 range, leaning heavy. The tools cover many independent utility categories, each with a minimal set of operations, but the overall count feels slightly excessive for a single server, though it is justified by the broad scope.
The server provides complete lifecycles for its functional areas: KV (set/get/list/delete), inbox (create/poll/delete), locks (acquire/release), timers (schedule/status/cancel/verify). Each utility is self-contained, and the request_tool offers a path for extending the surface. No obvious gaps or dead ends within the intended domain.