Skip to main content
Glama
codefuturist

Email MCP Server

by codefuturist
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete mailbox

delete_mailbox
Destructive

Permanently delete a mailbox and all its contents, an irreversible action. Verify the folder path first to avoid accidental data loss.

Instructions

⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Permanently delete a mailbox and ALL its contents. This cannot be undone. Use list_mailboxes to verify the folder path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesFolder path to delete (⚠️ all emails inside will be lost)
accountYesAccount name from list_accounts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds material context beyond that: the deletion is permanent, irreversible, and destroys all contained emails. It stops short of stating permission requirements or failure behavior for non-empty mailboxes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded and the precondition second. Every clause carries weight and nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation with annotations covering destructiveness and no output schema, the description supplies the irreversibility and content-loss facts an agent needs before calling. Missing only auth/permission expectations and what happens on a non-empty or invalid path.

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, including the warning on 'path'. The description only echoes the folder-path concept and the list_mailboxes source of truth, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (mailbox) plus scope ('ALL its contents'), which cleanly separates it from delete_email, delete_label, and rename_mailbox. The permanence qualifier makes the operation unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives one procedural pointer — verify the folder path with list_mailboxes first — which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over delete_email or bulk_action, and no explicit when-not conditions.

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