Gmail MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_thread

Remove unwanted email conversations from Gmail by deleting entire threads using their unique ID. This tool helps manage your inbox by permanently eliminating selected email threads.

Instructions

Delete a thread

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The ID of the thread to delete

Implementation Reference

src/index.ts:707-712 (handler)
The handler function for the 'delete_thread' tool. It uses handleTool to perform OAuth2 authentication and executes the Gmail API call to permanently delete the specified thread by ID.
```
async (params) => {
  return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
    const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.delete({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
    return formatResponse(data)
  })
}
```
src/index.ts:704-706 (schema)
The input schema for the 'delete_thread' tool, defining the required 'id' parameter as a string using Zod validation.
```
{
  id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to delete")
},
```

src/index.ts:702-713 (registration)

The registration of the 'delete_thread' tool on the MCP server, including name, description, schema, and handler function.

server.tool("delete_thread",
  "Delete a thread",
  {
    id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to delete")
  },
  async (params) => {
    return handleTool(config, async (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => {
      const { data } = await gmail.users.threads.delete({ userId: 'me', id: params.id })
      return formatResponse(data)
    })
  }
)

src/index.ts:50-66 (helper)

Shared helper function used by 'delete_thread' (and other tools) to handle OAuth2 client setup, credential validation, Gmail client creation, and execution of the API call with error handling.

const handleTool = async (queryConfig: Record<string, any> | undefined, apiCall: (gmail: gmail_v1.Gmail) => Promise<any>) => {
  try {
    const oauth2Client = queryConfig ? createOAuth2Client(queryConfig) : defaultOAuth2Client
    if (!oauth2Client) throw new Error('OAuth2 client could not be created, please check your credentials')

    const credentialsAreValid = await validateCredentials(oauth2Client)
    if (!credentialsAreValid) throw new Error('OAuth2 credentials are invalid, please re-authenticate')

    const gmailClient = queryConfig ? google.gmail({ version: 'v1', auth: oauth2Client }) : defaultGmailClient
    if (!gmailClient) throw new Error('Gmail client could not be created, please check your credentials')

    const result = await apiCall(gmailClient)
    return result
  } catch (error: any) {
    return `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}`
  }
}

src/index.ts:48-48 (helper)
Helper function used by 'delete_thread' (and other tools) to format the API response into MCP-compatible content structure.
```
const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedDec 8, 2025

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present to indicate safety or destructiveness, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. For instance, it does not state whether deletion is irreversible, if it cascades to messages, or what happens to related resources. The description adds no value beyond the name.

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?

The description is extremely concise: a single phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details that would be helpful, such as the permanence of deletion or any side effects. It is minimally complete but could be improved.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the input schema already describes the one parameter adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Delete a thread'. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like 'trash_thread' and 'modify_thread', but could more explicitly note that this is a permanent deletion.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trash_thread', nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects.

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

Deploy Server