hotmail-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

propose_delete_rule

Preview deletion of an email rule without applying changes. See what the rule does before committing, with ability to undo via restore.

Instructions

PREVIEW deleting a rule. Changes nothing — returns a draft_id.

Shows what the rule does so the user can see what stops happening. Commit with apply_rule. The rule set is snapshotted first, so a delete can be undone with restore_rules.

Args: rule_id: The rule_id from list_rules.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "rule_id": "<rule_id>"
    },
    "name": "propose_delete_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rule_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool has no side effects ('Changes nothing'), returns a `draft_id`, and snapshots the rule set. While it doesn't detail authorization or rate limits, the core behavioral trait (preview, non-destructive) is well communicated.

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 brief and well-structured: a bold preview statement, followed by behavioral explanation, and a clear argument listing. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, preview action), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, commit/undo workflow, and parameter source. No output schema needed since return value is mentioned.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The only parameter `rule_id` is described as 'The `rule_id` from `list_rules`.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title by indicating the source. The description is concise but sufficient for a single parameter.

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 explicitly states the tool 'PREVIEWs deleting a rule' and 'Changes nothing — returns a draft_id.' It clearly identifies the action (preview delete) and the resource (rule), distinguishing it from siblings like `apply_rule` or `restore_rules`.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use: before committing with `apply_rule`, and notes that deletion can be undone via `restore_rules`. It mentions sibling tools for commit and undo, giving clear context for usage.

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