commune-mcp

Official

by commune-dev

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

Python

Remote

delete_inbox

Remove an inbox permanently from a domain by supplying the domain ID and inbox ID.

Instructions

Delete an inbox.

Args: domain_id: The domain ID inbox_id: The inbox ID to delete

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": {
      "domain_id": "<domain_id>",
      "inbox_id": "<inbox_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_inbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain_id`	Yes
`inbox_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'Delete an inbox,' which restates the tool name and gives no details on permanence, permissions, or error behavior.

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 highly concise, using a single sentence for purpose and a simple arg list. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, but it omits useful context that could be added without bloat.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has a destructive function, but the description gives no context about consequences, when to use it, or what output to expect. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for missing operational details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description lists the two parameters with minimal explanations: 'The domain ID' and 'The inbox ID to delete.' These add only slightly to the schema's titles ('Domain Id', 'Inbox Id') and do not explain the meaning of a domain or why it's required.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'Delete an inbox,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes from siblings like create_inbox and list_inboxes by the delete verb, though it doesn't mention alternatives or 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as create_inbox or list_inboxes. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the inbox must be empty or belong to a specific domain.

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