Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gwagent

gwagent

by vcnngr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

gmail_delete_forever

Permanently delete Gmail conversations from Trash or Spam to purge them irreversibly; requires confirm=true.

Instructions

Permanently delete conversations that are in the Trash or Spam (cannot be undone).

Only conversations listed in the Trash or Spam folder (default: Trash), or in a search restricted to them ('in:trash ...' / 'in:spam ...'), can be targeted. Some Gmail builds (e.g. Workspace accounts) offer no per-conversation 'Delete forever'; the op then fails with not_found and gmail.empty is the only way to purge.

Requires confirm=true (outward-facing or destructive).

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": "gmail_delete_forever"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNoAct on EVERY conversation of the query/folder list (Gmail's 'Select all' after loading the whole list; repeated until the list is empty for actions that remove conversations from it). Needs query or folder; no index/indexes/match.
indexNoRow index from gmail.list / gmail.search (0 = first row).
matchNoSelect every row whose subject contains this text (case-insensitive).
queryNoRun this Gmail search first and take the rows from its results.
folderNoOpen this folder/label first and take the rows from it.Trash
confirmNoMust be true: this action is outward-facing or destructive.
indexesNoSeveral row indexes (multi-selection).
max_rowsNoWith match, look at most at this many rows from the top.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), the required confirm=true guard, the restricted target set, and the specific not_found failure mode on some Gmail builds. It does not describe the response shape or partial-failure behavior across multi-selection, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the irreversible action and its scope, followed by the targeting constraint and the confirm requirement. It is dense but every sentence carries operational information; minor tightening could improve it, but there is no filler.

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 an eight-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing context: irreversibility, confirm=true, target restrictions, and the gmail.empty fallback. The selection-parameter semantics are delegated to the fully covered schema, which is acceptable, though a note on multi-selection behavior would make it complete.

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 the eight selection parameters (all, index, indexes, match, query, folder, max_rows) are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the folder default and the confirm requirement but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete conversations') and narrows the scope to the Trash or Spam folder. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools such as gmail_trash, gmail_archive, and gmail_empty, so an agent can identify the correct operation without inspecting the schema.

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?

It explains the precondition that only conversations in Trash or Spam (or a search restricted to them) can be targeted, and it names gmail.empty as the fallback when per-conversation deletion is unavailable. It does not explicitly contrast with gmail_trash or gmail_restore, but the usage context is clear.

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