Skip to main content
Glama
julioc-barros

imap-mail-mcp

by julioc-barros
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_email

Delete emails from a specified IMAP folder by marking them as deleted and, when expunge is enabled, permanently removing them.

Instructions

Exclui e-mails (marca \Deleted e, se expunge=True, remove definitivamente da pasta). Para 'mover para a lixeira' prefira move_email para a pasta Trash/Lixeira.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidsYes
folderYes
accountNo
expungeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / account
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Account",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two-stage semantics: mark \Deleted, then permanently remove from the folder only when expunge=True. That is genuinely useful destructive-behavior context. It stops short of stating auth requirements or irreversibility beyond expunge, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the destructive semantics are front-loaded ahead of the routing hint. Every phrase earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core danger (permanent removal) and the sibling routing, but leaves folder/uid conventions and the non-expunge outcome implicit. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains expunge's effect well ('se expunge=True, remove definitivamente da pasta'), but says nothing about uids, folder, or account formats, leaving half the surface undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (Exclui) and resource (e-mails) and immediately distinguishes the operation from the sibling move_email by naming the alternative explicitly. An agent can tell delete from move-to-trash without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: for 'mover para a lixeira' use move_email to the Trash folder. This is a concrete when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-another statement, not inferred guidance.

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