Skip to main content
Glama

delete_thread

Remove email threads by specifying their unique ID. The tool ensures targeted deletion, enhancing inbox organization and workflow efficiency within Gmail.

Instructions

Delete a thread

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the thread to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The async handler function for the 'delete_thread' tool. It invokes the shared 'handleTool' helper to authenticate and call the Gmail API's users.threads.delete method with the provided thread 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)
      })
    }
  • The input schema (Zod) for the 'delete_thread' tool, defining the required 'id' parameter as a string.
    {
      id: z.string().describe("The ID of the thread to delete")
    },
  • src/index.ts:716-727 (registration)
    The registration of the 'delete_thread' tool using McpServer.tool(), including description, schema, and inline 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)
        })
      }
    )
  • Shared 'handleTool' helper function used by 'delete_thread' (and all other tools) to handle OAuth2 authentication, credential validation, Gmail client creation, and error handling specific to auth failures.
    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) {
        // Check for specific authentication errors
        if (
          error.message?.includes("invalid_grant") ||
          error.message?.includes("refresh_token") ||
          error.message?.includes("invalid_client") ||
          error.message?.includes("unauthorized_client") ||
          error.code === 401 ||
          error.code === 403
        ) {
          return formatResponse({
            error: `Authentication failed: ${error.message}. Please re-authenticate by running: npx @shinzolabs/gmail-mcp auth`,
          });
        }
    
        return formatResponse({ error: `Tool execution failed: ${error.message}` });
      }
    }
  • Utility 'formatResponse' function used by 'delete_thread' (and all tools) to standardize tool responses in MCP format.
    const formatResponse = (response: any) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }] })
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a thread' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to associated messages. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded critical information (e.g., destructive nature, alternatives) and wastes its brevity on a tautology. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity, making this score low.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools with overlapping functions (e.g., 'trash_thread'), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address behavioral risks, usage context, or output expectations, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use this tool correctly in a complex environment.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('The ID of the thread to delete'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. With 0 parameters needing description compensation, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema handles the semantics adequately.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Delete a thread' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_message' or 'trash_thread' by explaining what constitutes a 'thread' in this context or what deletion entails. While the verb 'delete' is clear, the resource 'thread' lacks context, making this minimally informative.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., thread existence), exclusions (e.g., irreversible deletion), or sibling tools like 'trash_thread' or 'delete_message' that might offer different functionality. This leaves the agent with no context for tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shinzo-labs/gmail-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server