delete-mio-messageMove MIO messages to the trash instead of deleting them permanently, so you can restore them later if needed.
Move a MIO message to trash (not permanent). Use restore-mio-message to undo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | The MIO message ID(s) to delete. Pass a single ID or an array of IDs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial nuance that this is a soft delete into trash and therefore reversible, which materially changes an agent's risk calculus. It doesn't state retention/expiry of trashed items or whether batch deletes are atomic, so not a 5.
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 short sentences, zero waste, with the most decision-relevant fact (non-permanent) front-loaded and the recovery path second.
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, no-output-schema tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies the reversibility guarantee and undo route that an agent needs before calling a destructive-annotated tool. Minor gap: nothing about partial failure when an array of IDs is passed.
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 schema already documents the UUID format, the single-or-array anyOf, and the source (get-mio-messages). The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Move ... to trash') and resource ('MIO message'), plus a scope qualifier ('not permanent'). It clearly separates itself from restore-mio-message and from move-mio-message (which relocates rather than trashes) without needing 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?
Explicitly routes the agent to restore-mio-message as the undo path, which is the main decision an agent faces after deleting. It does not address adjacent choices such as flag-mio-message or move-mio-message (folder relocation), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.