Skip to main content
Glama
Leonamin

Naver Mail MCP Server

by Leonamin

delete_folder

Remove unwanted email folders from your Naver Mail account to organize your mailbox and manage storage space effectively.

Instructions

메일 폴더 삭제

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folder_nameYes삭제할 폴더 이름

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of delete_folder in the mail service.
    def delete_folder(self, folder_name: str) -> None:
        """
        폴더를 삭제합니다.
        """
        with self._get_mailbox_client() as mailbox:
            mailbox.folder.delete(folder_name)
  • The request handling logic for the delete_folder MCP tool.
    elif name == "delete_folder":
        folder_name = args.get("folder_name")
        if not folder_name:
            return [TextContent(type="text", text="폴더 이름이 필요합니다.")]
    
        # 폴더 존재 여부 확인
        if not mail_service.is_folder_exists(folder_name):
            return [TextContent(type="text", text=f"폴더 '{folder_name}'가 존재하지 않습니다.")]
    
        mail_service.delete_folder(folder_name)
        return [TextContent(type="text", text=f"폴더 '{folder_name}'가 성공적으로 삭제되었습니다.")]
  • server.py:123-130 (registration)
    The registration of the delete_folder tool in the server.
    Tool(
        name="delete_folder",
        description="메일 폴더 삭제",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "folder_name": {
                    "type": "string",
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '메일 폴더 삭제' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to contained emails, or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single phrase ('메일 폴더 삭제'), which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it's overly terse—it could benefit from slightly more detail (e.g., on scope or effects) without losing efficiency. Every word earns its place, but the brevity limits usefulness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 1 parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., success/failure response), side effects, or safety considerations. For a deletion tool, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'folder_name' clearly documented as '삭제할 폴더 이름' (folder name to delete). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description '메일 폴더 삭제' (Delete mail folder) states the verb (delete) and resource (mail folder), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_mails' or 'rename_folder'—it's unclear if this deletes the folder structure versus its contents, or how it differs from other deletion tools. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., folder must be empty), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete default folders), or comparisons to siblings like 'delete_mails' or 'rename_folder'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer based on the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Leonamin/NaverMail-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server