Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PDF Content Search MCP

PDF Content Search MCP

by juergenkoller-software
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

cleanup_stale_mail_meta

Remove stale email metadata records: deletes 'empty' entries with 10+ attempts older than 30 days and 'failed' entries older than 90 days to maintain database hygiene.

Instructions

GC stale records: 'empty' with attemptCount>=10 older than 30 days, 'failed' older than 90 days.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cleanup_stale_mail_meta"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states conditions for records but does not describe the exact operation (e.g., deletion), whether it is destructive, idempotent, or synchronous. The effect on the system is unclear, which is a significant omission for a cleanup tool.

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—one line with no wasted words. For a tool with no parameters, this is efficient. However, the informal phrasing ('GC stale records') is less structured than ideal.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description should fully explain the tool's function. It covers the selection criteria but omits the action, side effects, and safety considerations. The tool likely has destructive effects, yet the description does not warn or clarify, making it incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. It implicitly defines the cleanup criteria, which suffices. Baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the conditions for records to be cleaned ('empty' with attemptCount>=10 older than 30 days, 'failed' older than 90 days), which gives clear criteria. However, it uses informal language ('GC stale records') and does not explicitly state the action performed (e.g., delete, archive). The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks a precise verb.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, frequency, or whether it should be run manually or automatically. Given many sibling tools, the lack of usage context is a gap.

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