Skip to main content
Glama

delete_thread

Remove email threads from Gmail by providing the thread ID to permanently delete conversation chains and manage inbox space.

Instructions

Delete a thread

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the thread to delete

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the 'delete_thread' tool. It uses the shared handleTool helper to authenticate and call the Gmail API's users.threads.delete method with the provided thread ID, then formats the response.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.delete({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for the 'delete_thread' tool, defined using Zod. Requires a single 'id' parameter: the thread ID as a string.
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to delete")
    },
  • src/index.ts:683-694 (registration)
    Registration of the 'delete_thread' tool on the MCP server using server.tool(), including description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool("delete_thread",
      "Delete a thread",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to delete")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.delete({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Shared helper function used by all Gmail tools, including delete_thread, to handle OAuth2 authentication, create Gmail client, execute the API call, and handle errors.
    const handleTool = async (queryConfig: Record<string, any> | undefined, apiCall: (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => Promise<any>) => {
      try {
        const oauth2Client = queryConfig ? createOAuth2Client(queryConfig) : defaultOAuth2Client
        if (!oauth2Client) throw new Error('OAuth2 client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const credentialsAreValid = await validateCredentials(oauth2Client)
        if (!credentialsAreValid) throw new Error('OAuth2 credentials are invalid, please re-authenticate')
    
        const gmailClient = queryConfig ? google.gmail({ version: 'v1', auth: oauth2Client }) : defaultGmailClient
        if (!gmailClient) throw new Error('Gmail client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const result = await apiCall(gmailClient)
        return result
      } catch (error: any) {
        return `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}`
      }
    }
  • Helper function to format API responses into MCP-compatible content structure by JSON stringifying the response.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present to indicate safety or destructiveness, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. For instance, it does not state whether deletion is irreversible, if it cascades to messages, or what happens to related resources. The description adds no value beyond the name.

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?

The description is extremely concise: a single phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient for an agent to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details that would be helpful, such as the permanence of deletion or any side effects. It is minimally complete but could be improved.

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 100% schema coverage, the input schema already describes the one parameter adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Delete a thread'. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like 'trash_thread' and 'modify_thread', but could more explicitly note that this is a 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trash_thread', nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects.

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