Permanently delete a received email by its ID, removing the raw message and attachments with no undo option. Use this to purge unwanted or sensitive inbound emails.
Permanently delete a received email, including its stored raw message and attachments (DELETE /emails/receiving/:id). This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The received email id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses permanent deletion, irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), and the full destruction scope (raw message plus attachments). This is exemplary transparency for a destructive operation.
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?
Two tightly focused sentences that front-load the action and resource, then provide the critical irreversibility warning. No filler or redundant wording.
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 single-parameter destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is deleted, the endpoint, and that the operation is permanent. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand consequences.
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% ('The received email id.'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by embedding the id in the endpoint path and tying it to the received email resource, but it does not explain how to obtain or validate the id. This is adequate but not additive beyond the schema.
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 states a specific action ('Permanently delete'), a specific resource ('received email'), and the full scope of what is deleted ('including its stored raw message and attachments'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_email, update_email, and forward_received_email, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.
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 context: use this when a received email must be permanently removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools directly compete for received-email deletion, so the purpose statement effectively guides selection. Slightly more explicit when-not-to-use guidance would earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.