Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
undo

undo

by tathagat22
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Unsend held email(s)

walkback_email_cancel

Cancel held email drafts to prevent them from being sent. Works only on unsent drafts, not on emails already released.

Instructions

Delete the held draft(s) so they never go out — a true unsend, possible only because they were never delivered. Does nothing to emails already released.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "walkback_email_cancel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoProject directory. Defaults to the server's working directory.
draftIdNoA specific held draft id, or omit for all.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It honestly describes behavior: true unsend, deletion, no effect on released emails. Lacks details on permanence or recovery, but adequate for a simple cancellation.

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 sentences, no redundant words. First sentence front-loads purpose. Every word serves a clear function.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 2 params, the description covers the main points: action, scope, and what it does not do. Missing return value or side effects, but sufficient for a straightforward deletion.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description restates schema for draftId (omit for all) without adding new semantics. cwd parameter is not elaborated, but its purpose is clear from schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and resource 'held draft(s)', with the specific outcome 'so they never go out'. It distinguishes from sending by noting 'possible only because they were never delivered'.

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?

The description indicates the tool is for held drafts and explicitly states it does nothing to released emails. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like walkback_email_release or walkback_email_pending, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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