Skip to main content
Glama
googlarz

Proton Mail Bridge MCP

by googlarz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

delete_draft

Destructive

Permanently delete a draft from local storage to discard an unwanted draft. Irreversible; requires explicit confirmation when enabled.

Instructions

Permanently delete a locally saved draft from SQLite. Use to discard a draft you no longer need. Does NOT remove a matching draft from the Proton Drafts IMAP folder — that requires a separate mailbox action. Irreversible; requires confirmed:true when PROTONMAIL_CONFIRM_DESTRUCTIVE is enabled.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
draftIdYesDraft id returned by create_draft, list_drafts, or a create_*_draft call.
confirmedNoPass true to confirm permanent deletion of the draft. Required when PROTONMAIL_CONFIRM_DESTRUCTIVE is enabled.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.8
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmed
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pass true to confirm permanent deletion of the draft. Required when PROTONMAIL_CONFIRM_DESTRUCTIVE is enabled.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Addedv1.13.11
  3. Removedv1.13.11
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / draftId / description
      Added value: +"Draft id returned by create_draft, list_drafts, or a create_*_draft call."
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals danger, but the description adds valuable context: the deletion is permanent, irreversible, limited to the local SQLite store, and does not affect the remote Proton Drafts IMAP folder. It also discloses the environment-dependent confirmation requirement, going well beyond the annotation.

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 tight sentences: the first states the core action and resource, the second gives usage intent, and the third surfaces critical caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a destructive, two-parameter action with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the exact scope, the irreversibility, the confirmation requirement, and the remote-folder exclusion. An agent has enough context to invoke it safely and avoid unintended remote deletions.

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%, and the schema already fully documents draftId and confirmed. The description restates the confirmed requirement in behavioral context but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a locally saved draft from SQLite.' It clearly scopes the tool to local drafts only and explicitly contrasts with the Proton Drafts IMAP folder, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_email or sync_draft_to_remote.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states when to use the tool ('Use to discard a draft you no longer need') and gives an explicit when-not: it does NOT remove the matching remote IMAP draft and requires a separate mailbox action. However, it does not name the specific sibling tool to use for that remote action, so the routing is not fully explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools