Delete a single email from iCloud Mail by UID, with optional mailbox selection and dry-run preview to confirm changes before removing anything.
Delete a single email
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | Email UID | |
| dryRun | No | If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything | |
| mailbox | No | Mailbox name (default INBOX) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.8.0Input schema / properties / dryRunAdded value: +{
+ "description": "If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states 'Delete' but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it moves to trash, whether a dryRun is available (despite the schema including one), or what permissions are required.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is arguably under-specified, but the sentence itself is efficient and not verbose.
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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as the effect of dryRun, default mailbox behavior, and irreversibility, leaving the agent with insufficient information to call the tool safely.
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%, so all parameters (uid, dryRun, mailbox) are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a single email'), and the word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from bulk deletion siblings like bulk_delete. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those alternatives.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus bulk_delete, move_email, or other deletion alternatives, and no preconditions or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.