apple-mail-mcp-server

by wylieswanson

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

delete_draft

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an email draft by moving it to the Trash; it becomes non-editable and is effectively discarded.

Instructions

Delete (move to Trash) an existing draft.

Lifecycle endpoint for cancellation. Mail.app moves the message to the Deleted Messages mailbox; recovery is technically possible but Mail.app no longer treats trashed drafts as editable, so this is effectively a one-way discard. No elicitation (recoverable from Trash) and no rate limit (local operation).

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": {
      "draft_id": "<draft_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft_id`	Yes	Mail.app id of the draft.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.2Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds specific consequences (moved to Deleted Messages, no longer editable, recovery possible but effectively one-way) and mentions there is no rate limit, which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 concise but includes a slightly redundant phrase 'No elicitation (recoverable from Trash)' that could be simplified. Overall it is easy to read and stays on point.

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 delete operation, the description covers the action, side effects, and recovery nuance. It doesn't describe return values, but that is likely unnecessary for this tool; the context is sufficiently 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?

The only parameter draft_id is fully described as 'Mail.app id of the draft.' Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no further details, so it stays at the baseline.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'draft', and clarifies it moves to Trash. This distinguishes it from other draft-related tools like update_draft or send_email.

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?

Describes the lifecycle purpose as 'cancellation' and notes the one-way nature. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the context makes the intended use unambiguous relative to sibling tools.

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