Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ThreadPage

by page.thread
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Move a folder to Trash

trash_folder
DestructiveIdempotent

Move a Folder and everything in it to Trash (restore_folder brings it back); to remove only the Folder and keep what it holds, use delete_folder_container. Refused as a whole when anything inside is outside this connection's access, or when a Note inside has an open request (request_open). Needs Can edit and organize; expected_revision is not compared. A Folder holding Threads needs the person's yes: your client may ask them, else it answers confirmation_required — ask, then send the same call with confirm. Answers a receipt whose url opens Trash.

Tool call template

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": {
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>",
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>",
      "expected_revision": "<expected_revision>"
    },
    "name": "trash_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoOnly after a confirmation_required answer and the person's yes: its details.confirm. Omit it otherwise.
folder_idYesA Folder's id, from list_folders or list_threads.
operation_idYesA new UUID for each write. After a lost answer, send the identical call with the same one, or check get_operation before writing again.
expected_revisionYesIts revision from list_threads, get_thread, list_folders or get_note (not a content_revision); not compared.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / expected_revision / description
      Previous value: -"The revision you last read for it."New value: +"Its revision from list_threads, get_thread, list_folders or get_note (not a content_revision); not compared."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, not read-only), it discloses the all-or-nothing refusal semantics, the "Can edit and organize" permission requirement, that expected_revision is not compared, and the confirmation_required handshake for Thread-holding folders. It even describes the return (a receipt whose url opens Trash) despite no output schema. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether an already-trashed folder errors or is a no-op, which matters given idempotentHint=true.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action and the sibling contrast are front-loaded, with refusal and confirmation conditions following in a logical order and no filler sentences. Parenthetical asides (restore_folder, request_open) are compact, though the single dense paragraph of clauses pushes toward the long side.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, permission-gated write with no output schema, the description covers permissions, refusal conditions, the confirmation handshake, revision handling, and the shape of the response. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and recover from confirmation_required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so folder_id, operation_id, expected_revision and confirm are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates those meanings (confirm only after a confirmation_required answer; expected_revision not compared). It reinforces rather than adds new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening clause gives a specific verb and resource ("Move a Folder and everything in it to Trash") plus the crucial scope detail that contents go with it. It immediately names the sibling it is not (delete_folder_container, which keeps contents) and the inverse (restore_folder), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly routes between three sibling operations with the condition that selects each: trash-all vs. remove-container-only vs. restore. It also states preconditions for refusal (content outside this connection's access, an open request on a contained Note) and the confirmation path when Threads are involved.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ThreadPage toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources