Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gmail Multi-Inbox MCP Server

Gmail Multi-Inbox MCP Server

by tszaks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_drafts

Permanently delete one or more drafts from a Gmail account. Provide the account and draft IDs (returned by create_draft or list_drafts) to remove them.

Instructions

Permanently delete one or more drafts in one account (account required). Draft IDs are returned by create_draft or list_drafts.

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "draft_ids": "<draft_ids>"
    },
    "name": "delete_drafts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountYesAccount id.
draft_idsYesDraft IDs to delete (as returned by create_draft or list_drafts).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses permanence and single-account scope, but misses potential side effects, authentication requirements, error behavior, or return value.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the operation and scope, followed by a useful pointer to ID sources. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple two-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage, the description provides essential behavioral information (permanent, single-account, ID source). Minor gaps around return values/errors are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description slightly reinforces the origin of draft_ids but adds no new semantic detail beyond the 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 the resource 'drafts', plus the scope (one or more in one account). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_label and delete_event.

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?

Provides clear context: drafts are identified by IDs returned from create_draft or list_drafts, and account is required. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no direct alternative exists for deleting drafts.

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