Delete a mailbox from ISPConfig by providing its user ID. Permanently removes the email account and associated settings.
Delete a mailbox
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | Mail user ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a destructive mutation but does not state that deletion is permanent, whether aliases or forwards are affected, or what happens to the mailbox's data.
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 clear sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices potentially useful behavioral detail.
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 destructive one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too minimal. It does not explain consequences, irreversibility, or dependencies with other mail objects, leaving the agent without enough context to assess impact.
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 input schema fully documents the single parameter user_id as 'Mail user ID' with 100% description coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clear verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a mailbox'), which maps directly to the mail_user_delete tool and distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete domains, aliases, or forwards. It is not merely a restatement of the tool name, though it could be more explicit that it refers to a mail user rather than a mailbox alias.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mail_alias_delete, mail_forward_delete, or mail_domain_delete. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.