Permanently removes an IMAP folder and all messages inside it; irreversible, so use only when you intend to erase that folder's contents.
Remove uma pasta e todas as mensagens nela. Irreversível.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / accountAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "title": "Account",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the action is irreversible and deletes all messages within, which is important behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permissions required, whether the account parameter affects scope, or what happens to subfolders. For a destructive tool, more transparency is needed.
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 a single short sentence in Portuguese, front-loading the action and consequence. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it could benefit from additional context.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key details like required permissions, scope of deletion (subfolders?), account parameter behavior, and error conditions. For a destructive two-parameter tool, this is inadequate.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'pasta' (folder) but doesn't clarify the 'name' parameter's format or the 'account' parameter's role (e.g., which account to use). The schema has no descriptions, leaving both parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 (remove) and resource (folder), and adds that it deletes all messages within. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like delete_email or explain folder hierarchy impact. Vague about whether it's a single folder or recursive operation.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_email or delete_email. It doesn't specify prerequisites or conditions. The only implied usage is for removing folders, but no context is given for when that's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.