mailboxes.delete_bulkDelete several mailboxes at once by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Mailbox IDs to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| http_status | Yes | HTTP status of the API response |
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?
The description's 'Delete' mirrors the destructiveHint=true annotation without adding additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, partial failure handling, or whether any dependent resources are affected. With annotations already declaring the destructive nature, the description provides minimal extra behavioral value but does not contradict anything.
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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, then adds the scope qualifier needed for correct selection.
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?
For a one-parameter bulk deletion tool with a complete input schema, an output schema, and annotations already declaring destructive behavior, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention behavior on invalid IDs or partial failures, but those details are not essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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% and the only parameter, 'ids', is already described as 'Mailbox IDs to delete'. The description adds only the phrase 'by ID' and the bulk qualifier, which slightly reinforces the parameter's role but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 states a clear action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('mailboxes'), with the bulk qualifier and the ID-based input distinguishing it from the sibling mailboxes.delete. An agent can immediately understand this is the multi-object counterpart to single mailbox deletion.
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?
'Delete several mailboxes at once by ID' clearly implies the tool should be used when deleting multiple mailboxes, which differentiates it from the single-mailbox delete sibling. It does not explicitly name the alternative or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.
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.
The resource namespaces make most tools easy to tell apart, and each action has a clear target. A couple of boundary cases exist, such as attachments.add versus mails.inject, since both relate to putting files on a simulated email, but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
Every tool follows the same resource.action convention, and the action verbs are predictable across the set, including delete_bulk and rotate_secret. The pattern is uniform even across different resource families, making the API very predictable.
With 40 tools, the surface is quite large for an MCP server, even though the namespaces are clean. Many singular and bulk delete variants could be combined or expressed as parameters to reduce the count, so the set feels heavier than it needs to be.
The server covers the main lifecycle needs for mailboxes, emails, attachments, archived mailboxes, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team management. Minor gaps remain, such as no mailbox update/rename, no manual archive action, and no invitation acceptance endpoint, but agents can work around these.