Delete an email rule by ID
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": {
"rule_id": "<rule_id>"
},
"name": "delete_email_rule"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes | Rule ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'delete' without revealing whether deletion is irreversible, requires permissions, or has cascading effects on related resources like email accounts or forwarding rules.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence that directly states the verb and resource, with no redundant or extraneous 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?
The tool is simple with a single parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the basic operation. However, missing annotations and behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility) leave some gaps for a mutation tool, making it only minimally complete.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with a description 'Rule ID to delete' for rule_id. The description merely restates that deletion is by ID, adding no new meaning beyond confirming the parameter's role.
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 'Delete an email rule by ID' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (email rule) with the identifier method (by ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_email_rule and update_email_rule.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_email_rule or list_email_rules. There is no mention of prerequisites, deletions being permanent, or any exclusion criteria.
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.