addy-mcp

delete_failed_deliveries

Destructive

Delete failed delivery records by ID and remove any stored email associated with them. Use it to clean up unsuccessful deliveries from an addy.io account.

Instructions

Delete failed delivery records (and any stored email).

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": {
      "failed_delivery_ids": "<failed_delivery_ids>"
    },
    "name": "delete_failed_deliveries"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`failed_delivery_ids`	Yes	Ids to delete (max 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 12, 2026

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, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the deletion cascades to any stored email associated with the record. It does not state irreversibility, whether the max-100 bound causes partial failure, or any permission requirement.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical cascade detail placed where it is most useful. No filler, though the parenthetical would read better as a full clause.

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 with full schema coverage and explicit destructive annotations, this is close to sufficient: the cascade to stored email is the key non-obvious fact and it is disclosed. Missing only irreversibility and batch-failure semantics, which are minor for a tool this simple.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its own name, type and 100-item cap, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the ids themselves, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 (delete) and resource (failed delivery records) and adds the scope note that stored email is removed too, which distinguishes it from purely metadata-level deletes. It does not name a sibling, but the operation is unambiguous on its own.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus resend_failed_delivery or the other failed-delivery tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The agent must infer that deletion is the terminal cleanup action after listing or inspecting records.

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

Deploy Server