delete_messagesRetry-safely move messages to Trash and return a durable per-item receipt. Reuse the exact idempotency key after timeouts. Reversible with update_email_messages action=restore. API: POST /api/emails/{address}/messages/delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Mailbox slug | |
| domain | Yes | Mailbox domain | |
| message_ids | Yes | IDs of messages to delete | |
| idempotency_key | Yes | Caller-stable key for this exact logical batch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / idempotency_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Caller-stable key for this exact logical batch",
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "minLength": 8,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "domain",
- "slug",
- "message_ids"
-]New value: +[
+ "domain",
+ "slug",
+ "message_ids",
+ "idempotency_key"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently: it discloses that messages are moved to Trash (not permanently deleted), that the operation is retry-safe via idempotency key, that a durable per-item receipt is returned, and that it is reversible via update_email_messages. This is substantial behavioral context beyond merely saying 'delete messages'.
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 compact and well-structured: four short sentences, each adding distinct value (purpose, retry behavior, reversibility, and explicit API endpoint). There is no filler or repetition of schema 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?
Given moderate complexity (bulk operation, idempotency, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: endpoint, retry semantics, reversibility, and return receipt. It does not describe partial-failure behavior or the exact structure of the receipt, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to proceed with a reasonable degree of confidence.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the idempotency_key parameter by explaining when and how to reuse it ('after timeouts'), and it clarifies the nature of the result ('durable per-item receipt'). This adds value beyond the schema's field descriptions.
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 the action ('move messages to Trash') and the resource ('messages'), and distinguishes this bulk operation from the sibling delete_message via 'Retry-safely' and 'per-item receipt'. The endpoint 'POST /api/emails/{address}/messages/delete' further reinforces the specific resource and operation.
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 provides clear retry guidance ('Reuse the exact idempotency key after timeouts') and explicitly names an alternative for reversing the operation ('update_email_messages action=restore'). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this bulk tool over the singular delete_message or other message-related tools.
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.