mailboxes.deleteDelete a mailbox and its contents by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mailboxId | Yes | Mailbox 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?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explicitly noting that the mailbox's contents are also deleted, effectively disclosing cascading deletion. The destructiveHint=true annotation already signals danger, and the description aligns with it without contradiction.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the key action, resource, and scope. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 one-parameter destructive operation with a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It covers the essential cascade behavior, though it omits any note about permanence, recovery, or authentication requirements.
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%, so the schema already documents mailboxId as 'Mailbox ID'. The description only echoes 'by ID' and adds no additional parameter semantics, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 states a precise action ('Delete'), the exact resource ('a mailbox'), and the scope ('and its contents'), while specifying the lookup method ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes this single-item delete from the sibling mailboxes.delete_bulk.
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?
There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over mailboxes.delete_bulk or other delete operations, nor any mention of irreversibility or prerequisites. The intended use is implied by the name and brief description but not explicitly stated.
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.