Gmail MCP Server

trash_thread

Move email threads to trash in Gmail to organize your inbox by removing unwanted conversations.

Instructions

Move a thread to the trash

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The ID of the thread to move to trash

Implementation Reference

src/index.ts:810-816 (handler)

The handler function for the 'trash_thread' tool. It uses the Gmail API to move the specified thread to the trash by calling gmail.users.threads.trash with the provided thread ID.

  async (params) => {
    return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
      const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.trash({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
      return formatResponse(data)
    })
  }
)

src/index.ts:807-809 (schema)
The input schema for the 'trash_thread' tool, defined using Zod. It requires a single 'id' parameter which is the thread ID.
```
{
  id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to move to trash")
},
```

src/index.ts:805-816 (registration)

The registration of the 'trash_thread' tool on the MCP server using server.tool, including description, schema, and handler.

server.tool("trash_thread",
  "Move a thread to the trash",
  {
    id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to move to trash")
  },
  async (params) => {
    return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
      const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.trash({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
      return formatResponse(data)
    })
  }
)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedDec 9, 2025

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided and description lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or permissions. Only states basic action.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Minimal for a mutation tool with no output schema or annotations. Does not explain what 'trash' means or its effects.

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% for the single parameter 'id', so baseline applies. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'move' and the resource 'thread to trash', distinguishing it from siblings like delete_thread and trash_message.

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_thread or trash_message.

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

Deploy Server