Microsoft 365 MCP Server

delete-mail-message

Destructive

Remove email messages from Microsoft 365 accounts by specifying the message ID. This tool helps manage Outlook inboxes by deleting unwanted or outdated emails through the Microsoft Graph API.

Instructions

Delete eventMessage.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "messageId": "<messageId>"
    },
    "name": "delete-mail-message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`If-Match`	No	ETag
`messageId`	Yes	Path parameter: messageId
`includeHeaders`	No	Include response headers (including ETag) in the response metadata
`excludeResponse`	No	Exclude the full response body and only return success or failure indication

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-developmentMar 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, clearly indicating a destructive write operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond this, but since annotations cover the critical safety profile, the bar is lower. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's overly terse and could benefit from slightly more context without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the destructive nature (annotations cover this), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on what 'eventMessage' means or confirmation behavior, but annotations provide critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter documentation in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete eventMessage' states the action (delete) and resource (eventMessage), but it's vague about what 'eventMessage' refers to in this mail context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like delete-mail-attachment or delete-specific-calendar-event, leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete-mail-attachment or delete-specific-calendar-event. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing messageId) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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

Deploy Server