Skip to main content
Glama

delete_filter

Remove unwanted email filters from your Gmail account by specifying the filter ID to delete.

Instructions

Deletes a filter

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the filter to be deleted

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the 'delete_filter' tool. It invokes the shared 'handleTool' helper to authenticate and call the Gmail API to delete the specified filter by ID.
    async (params) => {
      return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
        const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.filters.delete({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
        return formatResponse(data)
      })
    }
  • Input schema for 'delete_filter' tool using Zod to validate the required 'id' parameter.
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the filter to be deleted")
    },
  • src/index.ts:1040-1051 (registration)
    Registration of the 'delete_filter' tool on the MCP server, including description, schema, and handler.
    server.tool("delete_filter",
      "Deletes a filter",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The ID of the filter to be deleted")
      },
      async (params) => {
        return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
          const { data } = await gmail.users.settings.filters.delete({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
          return formatResponse(data)
        })
      }
    )
  • Shared 'handleTool' helper used by 'delete_filter' and other tools to manage OAuth2 authentication, credential validation, Gmail client creation, and error handling for API calls.
    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}` });
      }
    }
  • Helper function to format API responses into MCP content structure.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does not state whether deletion is permanent, if there are side effects, or any authorization needs. This is insufficient for 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?

The description is very concise at three words, front-loading the purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it slightly too terse.

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?

Given the simple tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description should at least indicate if it returns a response or side effects. It does not, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. It does not provide any additional context about the parameter usage.

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?

The description clearly states 'Deletes a filter' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_filter, get_filter, and list_filters.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description entirely lacks usage context.

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