Skip to main content
Glama
kojott

mailmcp

by kojott
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Move to trash

trash_message
DestructiveIdempotent

Move a specific email to the Trash folder using the account ID and message UID. The message stays recoverable and is never permanently deleted.

Instructions

Moves a message to the Trash folder. Never deletes permanently.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYesuid from search_messages: a number on IMAP mailboxes, an id string on Outlook; pass it back exactly as returned
folderNoFolder/label path. Defaults to All Mail on Gmail, INBOX elsewhere.
accountYesAccount id from list_accounts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.8.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / uid / description
      Added value: +"uid from search_messages: a number on IMAP mailboxes, an id string on Outlook; pass it back exactly as returned"
    • addedInput schema / properties / uid / maxLength
      Added value: +512
    • removedInput schema / properties / uid / maximum
      Removed value: -9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / uid / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • removedInput schema / properties / uid / minimum
      Removed value: -1
    • changedInput schema / properties / uid / type
      Previous value: -"integer"New value: +"string"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only, destructive, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that the action is reversible in the sense that it never permanently deletes the message, and it names the Trash folder as the destination. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical non-permanence qualifier is included immediately after.

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 simple mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations already describing read/write, destructiveness, and idempotency, the description plus schema provide enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Return behavior is not essential here.

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%: uid, folder, and account each have descriptions, including the important guidance to pass uid back exactly as returned. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Moves a message to the Trash folder.' It also adds the key distinction 'Never deletes permanently,' which clearly separates this tool from any permanent deletion operation and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for soft-deleting a message, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools like modify_message or when not to use it. There is no direct alternative routing or exclusion guidance, so usage context is only implied.

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