Delete an email mailbox from the hosting platform by supplying its unique mailbox ID. Removes the mailbox permanently, freeing up resources.
Delete a mailbox (careful!)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mail_box_id | Yes | Mailbox ID (from adm_mailboxes) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Delete a mailbox (careful!)' hints at destructiveness but does not explain consequences such as irreversibility, cascading deletions, or impact on related mailbox data. It adds little beyond what the tool's name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'careful!' is a concise warning that reinforces the destructive nature of the operation. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple signature and a fully documented parameter, but the description omits key behavioral context for a destructive operation. Without annotations, an agent cannot tell whether deletion is permanent or has side effects. The phrase 'careful!' acknowledges risk but does not explain it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter mail_box_id is already described as 'Mailbox ID (from adm_mailboxes)'. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Delete a mailbox.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adm_dns_delete or adm_mailboxes, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives. The warning '(careful!)' does not add purpose clarity but does not harm it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when this tool should be used versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'careful!', which is a caution rather than concrete usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.