Skip to main content
Glama
adecubed

gigamail

by adecubed
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_event

Destructive

Deletes a calendar event after out-of-band human approval. First call returns a preview and request_id; second call executes the approved deletion.

Instructions

Delete a calendar event on the connected calendar. TWO-PHASE, HUMAN-APPROVED: the first call (no request_id) executes nothing — it returns status=approval_required with a preview of exactly what would happen and a request_id. A human approves out of band (GigaMail console, CLI or Telegram, behind Windows Hello / Touch ID); the second call with that request_id executes the payload that was approved (the approved arguments, not the ones passed the second time). Requests expire (default 15 min); identical pending requests are deduplicated; more than 20 requests/hour per tool are refused (status=rate_limited). Every phase is written to the audit log. Deleting an event the user organised cancels it for every attendee (the provider sends cancellations). The preview shows the event_id. Returns {success}. Requires a connected calendar (Microsoft or Google).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYesEvent id from list_events.
request_idNoOmit on the first call. On the first call the tool does NOT execute: it returns status=approval_required, a preview and a request_id. A human must approve that request_id out of band (GigaMail console, `gigamail approvals approve`, or Telegram — all behind Windows Hello / Touch ID). Then call again with the same request_id to execute. The agent cannot approve; repeating the call without approval just returns awaiting_approval.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / event_id / description
      Added value: +"Event id from list_events."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id / description
      Added value: +"Omit on the first call. On the first call the tool does NOT execute: it returns status=approval_required, a preview and a request_id. A human must approve that request_id out of band (GigaMail console, `gigamail approvals approve`, or Telegram — all behind Windows Hello / Touch ID). Then call again with the same request_id to execute. The agent cannot approve; repeating the call without approval just returns awaiting_approval."
  2. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Far exceeds what annotations convey: two-phase human approval, out-of-band approval channels behind biometrics, request expiry (15 min), deduplication, rate limit (20/hour with status=rate_limited), audit logging, and the consequential effect that deleting an organizer's event cancels it for all attendees. This is rich, decision-relevant behavioral context beyond the destructive/openWorld hints.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded, moving from purpose to the critical two-phase constraint immediately. Some overlap with the schema's request_id description and the parenthetical channel list is verbose, but every sentence carries operational weight.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the approval workflow, failure/limit states, audience cancellation impact, the preview content, and the {success} return value. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces request_id semantics (omit on first call, execute on second) but adds little beyond the schema text. 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Delete a calendar event') with scope ('on the connected calendar'). Clearly distinguished from siblings like list_events and create_event, and it names the provider constraint (Microsoft or Google).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit operational context: requires a connected calendar, two-phase flow, and how each phase is invoked. Lacks explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives routing (e.g., vs delete_message), but the invocation context is very clear.

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