protonmail-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Ta bort mapp eller etikett

delete_folder

Destructive

Delete custom ProtonMail folders or labels by name. Use force to remove non-empty folders; system folders are protected and emails remain in All Mail.

Instructions

Ta bort en egen mapp (Folders/…) eller etikett (Labels/…).

Mappen måste vara tom och sakna undermappar; annars avvisas anropet med fel och inget ändras. Med force=True tas den bort ändå. Mejlen raderas inte, men:

för en etikett försvinner etiketten från alla mejl som hade den,
för en mapp ligger mejlen sedan inte kvar i mappen (de finns i All Mail),
vad Proton gör med undermappar och deras mejl är inte känt. Systemmapparna (INBOX, Sent, Trash, All Mail …) kan inte tas bort.

Args: name: Namn med prefix, t.ex. "Folders/Gammalt" eller "Labels/Kvitton" force: Ta bort även om mappen innehåller mejl (standard: False)

Returns: True när mappen är borttagen. Annars kastas ett fel med förklaring.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`force`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.4.0Oct 21, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / force
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Force",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / name / maxLength
```
Added value: +255
```
- addedInput schema / properties / name / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive annotation, it explains exactly what happens: emails are not deleted, labels are removed from all emails, folder emails remain in All Mail, and Proton's handling of subfolders is unknown. This is highly valuable behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 detailed but well organized: purpose first, then constraints and effects, followed by Args and Returns. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but almost every sentence adds relevant operational detail.

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?

Given the destructive nature, unknown subfolder behavior, and two parameters, the description provides all essential context for correct invocation. An output schema exists, and the description still clarifies the return/error contract usefully.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It fully explains name with required prefixes and examples, and explains force including its default and effect.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: deleting a folder or label, with explicit prefix formats (Folders/… and Labels/…). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as create_folder, rename_folder, and delete_email.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear conditions: the folder must be empty and have no subfolders, system folders cannot be deleted, and force=True overrides the empty-folder restriction. It does not explicitly compare against sibling alternatives, but the allowed and disallowed cases are well defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.