fortimail.queue.deleteDelete selected messages from a FortiMail queue by specifying comma-separated mail keys and queue type; use for destructive removal of queued email.
Purpose: DELETE /v1/queue with confirmation header (see engine docs).
Side effects: Destructive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mail_keys | Yes | Comma-separated mkeys | |
| queue_type | Yes | Queue type key (maps to engine type integer) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's added value is the requirement of a confirmation header, but it is vague ('see engine docs') and restates the destructive trait already present in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two labeled fragments, front-loaded with purpose then side effects, with no filler sentences. The 'see engine docs' pointer is a mild deferral but keeps the definition tight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an irreversible destructive operation with no output schema, the definition states destructiveness and mentions a confirmation header, but it never specifies the header itself or whether deletion is permanent, pushing essential detail to external docs. Adequate but with a clear gap for a tool whose main risk is irreversibility.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, covering the comma-separated mkey format and the queue_type enum with thirteen values, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about parameter formats, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource (DELETE on the mail queue) and matches the title 'Delete Queued Mail', so an agent knows it removes messages from a queue. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like fortimail.queue.reroute or fortimail.queue.download beyond the obvious delete semantics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fortimail.queue.search or fortimail.queue.view for locating mkeys, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only guidance is a deferral to 'engine docs' for the confirmation header, which leaves the agent without actionable selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.