Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proton-bridge-mcp

proton-bridge-mcp

by Considus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Delete a draft

delete_draft
DestructiveIdempotent

Move a draft to Trash without permanent deletion. Supports dry run to preview changes before confirmation.

Instructions

Move a draft to Trash. GATED. Nothing here deletes permanently.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "uid": "<uid>"
    },
    "name": "delete_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYes
folderNoDefaults to your Drafts folder.
dry_runNoPreview exactly what would happen and change nothing. Needs no confirmation.
confirmedNo
uidvalidityNoUIDVALIDITY of the folder; refuses on mismatch.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it reveals the draft goes to Trash, is gated (likely requiring confirmation), and is non-permanent. This is useful despite destructiveHint being true. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action. The one-word sentence 'GATED' is cryptic but impactful, and each phrase earns its place. Could be slightly clearer but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple draft deletion tool, the description covers key behavior (to Trash, gated, non-permanent). The annotations provide destructive/read-only hints and schema covers parameters. No output schema exists, so return value details are not required. Adequate for safe usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 60%, so many parameters already have descriptions. The tool description doesn't explain individual parameters, but the schema handles most of the burden. The word 'GATED' hints at the confirmed parameter but doesn't elaborate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool moves a draft to Trash, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_label or purge_attachments by clarifying it's about drafts and non-permanent deletion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for soft-deleting drafts to trash, and 'Nothing here deletes permanently' suggests not to use it if permanent deletion is intended. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when to use it over other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools