delete_mailboxDelete a mailbox and all its messages (including attachments). Requires confirm=true. Call without confirm first to see what will be deleted. API: DELETE /api/emails/{address}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Mailbox slug | |
| domain | Yes | Mailbox domain | |
| confirm | No | Must be true to actually delete. Omit to preview. |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses destructive scope (all messages and attachments), the confirm requirement, and the preview step. This goes beyond simple 'delete' and gives the agent essential safety information. The API endpoint is a useful technical detail.
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?
Three concise sentences. The first states the destructive action, the second gives the safety requirement, and the third provides the API endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key context: what gets deleted, the confirmation requirement, and the preview mechanism. It could mention irreversibility explicitly or note effects on aliases, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool safely.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds critical meaning for the confirm parameter: 'Requires confirm=true. Call without confirm first to see what will be deleted.' This goes beyond the schema's 'Must be true to actually delete. Omit to preview.' by explaining the two-step usage pattern.
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 clearly states 'Delete a mailbox and all its messages (including attachments)', which uses a specific verb and resource with scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_message and delete_messages by focusing on the entire mailbox.
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 explicitly instructs to call without confirm first to preview, then with confirm=true to delete. This provides clear operational guidance. Although it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for deleting individual messages, the preview/confirm workflow and scope make usage clear.
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.
While most tools have distinct purposes, several clusters overlap significantly (e.g., check_email, check_email_deliverability, get_email_deliverability, get_domain_email_status; buy_domain, buy_aftermarket, acquire_domain). The descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools makes it challenging for an agent to select the correct one without careful reading.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_mailbox, list_domains), but there are notable inconsistencies: destructive actions mix delete/remove/cancel/revoke/unsell, and a few names deviate entirely (search, dns_check, domain_status). The pattern is recognizable but not uniformly applied.
With 122 tools, this vastly exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. Even for a comprehensive domain and email platform, the tool count is overwhelming and will likely hinder agent performance through excessive choice and context bloat.
The server covers a wide range of domains, DNS, email, marketplace, negotiations, transfers, webhooks, tokens, and billing. Minor gaps exist, such as no update operation for mail rules, no direct domain deletion, and limited mailbox configuration beyond forwarding and credentials, but most lifecycle workflows are supported.