attachments.deleteDelete a single attachment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mailId | Yes | Mail ID | |
| mailboxId | Yes | Mailbox ID | |
| attachmentId | Yes | Attachment ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| http_status | Yes | HTTP status of the API response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is established without description. The description adds only the 'single' scope and does not disclose permanence, permissions, or side effects, but this is partially acceptable given the annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-resource deletion tool.
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?
Given the simple operation, fully documented parameters, output schema, and destructiveHint annotation, the description is sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. It does not explain when to choose delete_bulk, but that gap is more about usage guidance than blocking invocation.
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%, with all three required parameters clearly documented as Mail ID, Mailbox ID, and Attachment ID. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and clearly identifies the resource ('a single attachment'). The word 'single' distinguishes this tool from the sibling attachments.delete_bulk, so an agent can immediately understand its scope.
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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The word 'single' implies this is for deleting one attachment rather than multiple, but the agent must infer the distinction from the sibling tool name delete_bulk rather than being told directly.
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.
The resource namespaces make most tools easy to tell apart, and each action has a clear target. A couple of boundary cases exist, such as attachments.add versus mails.inject, since both relate to putting files on a simulated email, but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
Every tool follows the same resource.action convention, and the action verbs are predictable across the set, including delete_bulk and rotate_secret. The pattern is uniform even across different resource families, making the API very predictable.
With 40 tools, the surface is quite large for an MCP server, even though the namespaces are clean. Many singular and bulk delete variants could be combined or expressed as parameters to reduce the count, so the set feels heavier than it needs to be.
The server covers the main lifecycle needs for mailboxes, emails, attachments, archived mailboxes, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team management. Minor gaps remain, such as no mailbox update/rename, no manual archive action, and no invitation acceptance endpoint, but agents can work around these.