Remove an email filter from a cPanel account by specifying the email account and filter name to clean up outdated or unwanted mail routing rules.
Delete an email filter
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | Email account (user@domain.com) | |
| filtername | Yes | Name of the filter to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states 'Delete an email filter' without mentioning irreversibility, error handling (e.g., if the filter does not exist), or any side effects on email processing. This is minimal disclosure and does not go beyond the basic verb.
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, short sentence with no redundant words. It is extremely concise and front-loaded, making it easy to parse and understand the core purpose immediately.
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?
Given that the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat lacking. It adequately covers the basic action and parameters, but it does not inform the agent about return values, error conditions, or the permanence of the deletion. The description is sufficient for a simple tool but leaves some gaps.
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?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (account and filtername), with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameters, so 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description precisely states the action (delete) and the resource (an email filter), which is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_email_filters or trace_email_filter. It uses a specific verb+resource structure that leaves no doubt about the tool's function.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_email_filters to identify the filter name first. It merely states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.