Skip to main content
Glama

stub

by africa.stub.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete client

delete_client
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete one customer or many to the bin (soft-delete, restorable). Send id for one customer, which returns {error}. Or send ids (up to 1000) to delete many in one transaction, which returns {error, deleted: [id ...], errors: [{id, message} ...]}. That is partial success: ids this business does not own, already deleted, or still linked to quotes/invoices are skipped and listed in errors, and error is true only when nothing was deleted. By default a customer with linked (non-deleted) quotes/invoices is refused so those documents aren't orphaned. Pass force:true to override, or archive via update_client.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoOne client id to delete.
idsNoUp to 1000 client ids to delete in one transaction. Partial success: ids this business does not own, already deleted, or still linked (unless force) are skipped and listed in errors.
forceNoDelete even when the client still has linked (non-deleted) quotes/invoices. Default false: the delete is refused when links exist, so linked documents aren't orphaned (PROD-555).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Client id of the client to delete."New value: +"One client id to delete."
    • addedInput schema / properties / ids
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Up to 1000 client ids to delete in one transaction. Partial success: ids this business does not own, already deleted, or still linked (unless force) are skipped and listed in errors.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 1000,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id"
-]New value: +[]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations by disclosing the partial-success contract (skipped ids listed in errors, `error` true only when nothing deleted), the orphan-protection refusal, and the soft-delete/restorable semantics. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the soft-delete qualifier, then layers parameter routing, return shapes, and the force caveat. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; only the return-shape enumeration is slightly heavy for a description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description documents both return shapes ({error} vs {error, deleted, errors}) and the partial-success semantics, plus the link-refusal rule. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool correctly is missing.

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 `id`, `ids` (max 1000, partial success), and `force` are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates those semantics and adds return-shape detail rather than new parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete one customer or many') and immediately qualifies scope with 'to the bin (soft-delete, restorable)'. This clearly distinguishes it from hard-delete siblings like delete_document or delete_supplier and from update_client.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes by parameter: send `id` for one customer, `ids` for many. States the default refusal behavior for linked documents, the `force:true` escape hatch, and names the alternative 'archive via update_client'. When-to-use and when-to-override are both covered.

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

All stub toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources