Skip to main content
Glama

batch_delete_messages

Delete multiple Gmail messages simultaneously by specifying their IDs to manage inbox clutter efficiently.

Instructions

Delete multiple messages

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesThe IDs of the messages to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for batch_delete_messages tool that calls the Gmail API's users.messages.batchDelete method via the shared handleTool function.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.messages.batchDelete({ userId: 'me', requestBody: { ids: params.ids } })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for the batch_delete_messages tool, requiring an array of message IDs.
    {
      ids: z.array(z.string()).describe("The IDs of the messages to delete")
    },
  • src/index.ts:534-545 (registration)
    Registration of the batch_delete_messages tool using McpServer.tool() including description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool("batch_delete_messages",
      "Delete multiple messages",
      {
        ids: z.array(z.string()).describe("The IDs of the messages to delete")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.messages.batchDelete({ userId: 'me', requestBody: { ids: params.ids } })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Shared helper function handleTool used by batch_delete_messages (and other tools) to handle OAuth2 authentication, Gmail client creation, API call execution, and error handling.
    const handleTool = async (queryConfig: Record<string, any> | undefined, apiCall: (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => Promise<any>) => {
      try {
        const oauth2Client = queryConfig ? createOAuth2Client(queryConfig) : defaultOAuth2Client
        if (!oauth2Client) throw new Error('OAuth2 client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const credentialsAreValid = await validateCredentials(oauth2Client)
        if (!credentialsAreValid) throw new Error('OAuth2 credentials are invalid, please re-authenticate')
    
        const gmailClient = queryConfig ? google.gmail({ version: 'v1', auth: oauth2Client }) : defaultGmailClient
        if (!gmailClient) throw new Error('Gmail client could not be created, please check your credentials')
    
        const result = await apiCall(gmailClient)
        return result
      } catch (error: any) {
        // Check for specific authentication errors
        if (
          error.message?.includes("invalid_grant") ||
          error.message?.includes("refresh_token") ||
          error.message?.includes("invalid_client") ||
          error.message?.includes("unauthorized_client") ||
          error.code === 401 ||
          error.code === 403
        ) {
          return formatResponse({
            error: `Authentication failed: ${error.message}. Please re-authenticate by running: npx @shinzolabs/gmail-mcp auth`,
          });
        }
    
        return formatResponse({ error: `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}` });
      }
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as irreversibility, partial success handling, or required permissions beyond implying a destructive operation.

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?

Extremely concise at two words, front-loading the core action, though it could expand slightly without losing efficiency.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description is adequate but lacks details about return behavior or error scenarios, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with param 'ids' described as 'The IDs of the messages to delete', so the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline 3.

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?

Description specifies verb (delete) and resource (multiple messages), clearly distinguishing from sibling 'delete_message' which handles single messages.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_message' (single) or 'trash_message' (soft delete), nor any prerequisites or context.

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