addy-mcp

delete_recipient

Destructive

Delete a recipient by UUID. Aliases that used it fall back to the default recipient, keeping mail delivery working.

Instructions

Delete a recipient. Aliases that used it fall back to the default recipient.

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": {
      "recipient_id": "<recipient_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_recipient"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recipient_id`	Yes	The id (UUID) of the item

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: aliases referencing the deleted recipient fall back to the default recipient, which tells the agent about a cascade effect it could not infer from annotations alone. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is permanent or what happens if no default recipient exists.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with zero waste: the action first, then the consequential side effect. Nothing is buried or repeated, and the front-loading makes the core operation immediately clear.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action and its main side effect. A note on permanence or failure modes would close the remaining gap, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents recipient_id as a UUID. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Delete a recipient"), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling mutations like update_recipient or delete_alias. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource-level specificity is sufficient for an agent to identify it.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_recipient or delete_alias, and no stated prerequisites or warnings about irreversibility. The only implied usage cue is the side-effect note about aliases, which hints at caution but is not framed as guidance.

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

Deploy Server