delete_labelRemove a label from an account; for ProtonMail it deletes the label folder, while IMAP keyword labels cannot be deleted server-wide—use per-email removal instead.
Delete a label. For ProtonMail, deletes the label folder. For standard IMAP keywords, labels cannot be deleted server-wide — use remove_label on individual emails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Label name to delete | |
| account | Yes | Account name from list_accounts |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing provider-dependent behavior — that on IMAP the operation effectively fails and a different tool must be used. It doesn't state whether the delete is reversible or what happens to emails bearing the label, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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?
Three short sentences, zero waste, with the primary action front-loaded and the provider caveat following immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-param destructor with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, the provider dependency, and the fallback. Nothing essential is missing.
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 coverage is 100% with both params (name, account) documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about syntax, naming constraints, or the account param. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (label), and explicitly distinguishes the two backends: ProtonMail deletes the label folder, standard IMAP keywords can't be deleted server-wide. An agent can separate this from add_label/create_label/remove_label without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly names the alternative (remove_label on individual emails) and the exact condition that routes to it (standard IMAP keywords, no server-wide delete). This is a genuine when-not clause, not just implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.