Delete an inbox: revokes the token and erases stored mail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Mailbox bearer token (mi_live_...) returned when the inbox was purchased. Optional when the MCP request itself carries Authorization: Bearer. | |
| inbox_id | Yes | Inbox UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates the two irreversible effects: token revocation (breaking access) and data erasure. This is sufficient to warn an agent that the operation is destructive, though it could further emphasize that the deletion is permanent and cannot be reversed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. Every part is meaningful: the action ('delete'), the resource ('inbox'), and the specific effects ('revokes token and erases stored mail'). It is perfectly sized for efficient comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit mention that the operation is permanent, but the given effects ('erases stored mail') strongly imply irreversibility. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that there is no confirmation step or undo.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the consequences of using the required parameter (inbox_id) and the optional token parameter (tied to authentication context). This helps an agent understand the practical meaning of each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb 'delete' and resource 'inbox', and further clarifies the precise actions taken: token revocation and erasing stored mail. This action is distinct from all sibling tools (create, get, list, reply_to, etc.), eliminating any ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a destructive action by mentioning 'revokes' and 'erases', which guides appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., no undo), leaving some gap for an AI agent to infer caution on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: create vs. delete vs. get for inboxes and webhooks, list vs. get for messages, plus specific actions like extracting verification codes, replying, and retrieving service info. There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_inbox, get_verification_code, set_webhook). The naming is predictable and uniform across the entire surface.
With 11 tools covering inbox lifecycle (create, read, delete), message retrieval and actions (list, get, reply, verification code), webhook management (set, get, delete), and service information, the count is well-scoped for a temporary email service.
The tool surface provides full CRUD for inboxes, message retrieval and reply, webhook management, and specialized operations like verification code extraction. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of managing disposable inboxes.
