Skip to main content
Glama

trash_message

Move Gmail messages to trash to declutter your inbox and manage email storage. Specify the message ID to permanently remove unwanted emails.

Instructions

Move a message to the trash

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the message to move to trash

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:643-654 (registration)
    Registration of the trash_message tool using McpServer.tool, defining its name, description, input schema (message ID), and inline handler function that uses the Gmail API to move the message to trash.
    server.tool("trash_message",
      "Move a message to the trash",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the message to move to trash")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.messages.trash({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • The handler function for trash_message tool, which invokes handleTool to authenticate and call gmail.users.messages.trash API with the provided message ID.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.messages.trash({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for trash_message tool using Zod: requires a string 'id' parameter for the message ID.
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the message to move to trash")
    },
  • Shared helper function handleTool used by trash_message (and other tools) to manage OAuth2 authentication, credential validation, Gmail client creation, and API call execution with error handling.
    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 formatResponse used to standardize tool responses into MCP content format by JSON stringifying the API 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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose consequences such as reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects on labels. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, front-loaded, and efficient.

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 simple schema and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but lacks behavioral context compared to siblings like delete_message. It could mention recoverability.

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?

The schema already describes the 'id' parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Move') and resource ('a message') with the destination ('to the trash'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_message (permanent) and untrash_message (reverse).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_message or untrash_message. It is implied for soft deletion, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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