mailwarden

trash

DestructiveIdempotent

Move a Gmail thread to deleted mail when you need to discard it; recover it within about 30 days before permanent deletion.

Instructions

Move a thread to Trash. USE WHEN: the thread should be discarded. DO NOT USE: for inbox cleanup of mail worth keeping (use archive). SIDE EFFECTS: thread moves to Trash; recoverable via untrash for ~30 days, then Gmail deletes it permanently.

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": {
      "threadId": "<threadId>"
    },
    "name": "trash"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`threadId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.25.0Oct 29, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv0.1.8Jul 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing the retention window (~30 days), the mechanism of recovery (untrash), and the permanent-deletion endpoint. These are consequences an agent cannot derive from the structured hints alone.

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?

Three compact labeled clauses (action, USE WHEN, DO NOT USE, SIDE EFFECTS) with the verb and scope front-loaded. Every sentence carries decision-relevant or consequence-relevant information; nothing is padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps a destructive mutation must address: when to choose it, what it displaces, and that it is reversible for a bounded window. Complete for a one-parameter destructive tool.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. "Move a thread" makes clear that threadId identifies the thread being trashed, but no format or ID-source guidance is given (e.g. where a threadId comes from, whether a message ID is acceptable).

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Move a thread to Trash") and immediately distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by routing keep-worthy cleanup to archive. An agent can pick this out of the 30-tool sibling list without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use ("the thread should be discarded") and when-not ("inbox cleanup of mail worth keeping") with the named alternative (archive) plus untrash as the recovery path. Both branches of the decision are given, leaving nothing to inference.

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