Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Capes

Capes

by Dipeshpal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

gmail_delete_draft

Destructive

Permanently deletes a Gmail draft using its message ID, helping clear unwanted drafts from your account.

Instructions

Permanently delete a draft.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "gmail_delete_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMessage id from gmail_search / gmail_list_drafts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful detail that deletion is permanent/irreversible, which is real added context, but it says nothing about auth scope or what happens to the id afterward.

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?

A single four-word sentence with zero waste and the critical qualifier ('Permanently') front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though it is minimal to the point of omitting routing information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile and whose schema documents the id, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is not routing the agent to gmail_trash or gmail_list_drafts as a discovery path.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter already documents its source (gmail_search / gmail_list_drafts). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('delete a draft') with the qualifier 'Permanently', which implicitly distinguishes it from the trash-style sibling gmail_trash. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The word 'Permanently' hints at the contrast with gmail_trash, but the agent is left to infer that trashing is the non-destructive option.

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