Empty the SpamAssassin spam folder by deleting all messages, freeing up mailbox storage and reducing clutter.
Clear all messages from the SpamAssassin spam box
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "clear_spam_box"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive action ('Clear all messages'), which is the core behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, whether it affects other settings, or any side effects. It adds some transparency but could be more explicit.
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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and target. No filler words, perfectly front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 simple 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It conveys the essential purpose and the scope of the action. It could mention permanence or relation to SpamAssassin configuration, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly sufficient.
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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description correctly focuses on the action without needing to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this description meets that.
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 uses a specific verb ('Clear') and identifies the exact resource ('all messages from the SpamAssassin spam box'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_spam_box, disable_spam_box, and get_spam_settings, which have different purposes.
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 implies the usage scenario (when you want to empty the spam box) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is self-explanatory but lacks direct comparison to related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.