Skip to main content
Glama
Mogacode-ma

infomaniak-mcp-agent

by Mogacode-ma
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

infomaniak_delete_mailbox

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a mailbox on Infomaniak mail hosting and permanently erase all its emails. Uses a two-phase commit process for safety.

Instructions

Delete a mailbox. Two-phase commit. WARNING: this also deletes all stored emails for that mailbox.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mail_hosting_idYesMail hosting ID. Discover via infomaniak_list_mail_hostings.
mailbox_nameYesLocal part of the mailbox WITHOUT the @domain (e.g. 'anthony' for anthony@coden.lu). NOT the full email address. Verify with infomaniak_list_mailboxes before deleting — this wipes stored mail.
confirmation_tokenNoToken from the first (plan) phase. The plan response shows the mailbox + a warning that stored mail will be wiped. Re-pass to execute.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmation_token / description
      Added value: +"Token from the first (plan) phase. The plan response shows the mailbox + a warning that stored mail will be wiped. Re-pass to execute."
    • addedInput schema / properties / mail_hosting_id / description
      Added value: +"Mail hosting ID. Discover via infomaniak_list_mail_hostings."
    • addedInput schema / properties / mailbox_name / description
      Added value: +"Local part of the mailbox WITHOUT the @domain (e.g. 'anthony' for anthony@coden.lu). NOT the full email address. Verify with infomaniak_list_mailboxes before deleting — this wipes stored mail."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses two-phase commit behavior and explicitly warns that all stored emails are deleted, adding valuable context not captured by annotations.

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?

Three short, high-impact sentences: purpose, two-phase commit, and warning. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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?

Given the destructive nature and two-phase commit, the schema compensates with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., confirmation_token, verification steps) and an output schema exists. The description is brief but sufficient when combined with structured context.

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 description itself contains no parameter details, but schema coverage is 100% with rich descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. No added value from the description, but no gap either.

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 'Delete a mailbox' with a specific verb and resource, and the warning about deleting all stored emails distinguishes it from related mailbox operations like purging spam or emptying trash.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites. 'Two-phase commit' hints at a workflow but does not explain the plan/execute flow or recommend verifying with infomaniak_list_mailboxes beforehand (though the schema does provide this).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools