Soft-delete a message (moves it to the recycle bin).
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": {
"inboxId": "<inboxId>",
"messageId": "<messageId>"
},
"name": "delete_message"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inboxId | Yes | ||
| messageId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: this is a soft delete moving the item to a recycle bin, implying recoverability rather than destruction. It omits permission/auth requirements, behavior on an already-deleted message, and whether the inbox must exist, so the disclosure is partial.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the critical 'soft-delete' qualifier placed first and the parenthetical clarifying the mechanism. No wasted words.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the definition is too thin — it says nothing about side effects on the source inbox, error conditions, or what the call returns. The one clause about the recycle bin is helpful but not sufficient.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only refers vaguely to 'a message' and never explains the required inboxId scoping or the ID format. The two required parameters are effectively undocumented everywhere.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete a message'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from read tools like get_message or list_messages. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_inbox or a hard-delete path, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
No statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. does the message need to be in the inbox or can it already be in the bin?), and no guidance on what to do if the message should be permanently removed. The agent must infer usage entirely.
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.