Skip to main content
Glama

stub

by africa.stub.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete supplier

delete_supplier
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete one supplier or many to the bin (soft-delete, restorable). Send id for one supplier, 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 bills/expenses are skipped and listed in errors, and error is true only when nothing was deleted. By default a supplier with linked (non-deleted) bills/expenses is refused so those expenses aren't orphaned. Pass force:true to override, or archive via save_supplier.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoOne supplier id to delete.
idsNoUp to 1000 supplier 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 supplier still has linked (non-deleted) bills/expenses. Default false: the delete is refused when links exist, so linked expenses aren't orphaned (PROD-663).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Supplier id of the supplier to delete."New value: +"One supplier id to delete."
    • addedInput schema / properties / ids
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Up to 1000 supplier 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent/not-readOnly, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it is a soft-delete to the bin (restorable), partial success is possible in bulk mode, error is true only when nothing was deleted, and linked bills/expenses block deletion unless forced. This is exactly the behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the core action (soft-delete, restorable) and mode selection, and every sentence carries information. It is dense—packing return shapes and partial-success semantics into a paragraph—which slightly hurts scannability but leaves no filler.

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, and the description compensates fully by documenting the return shapes for both modes and the meaning of the error fields. For a destructive bulk tool, the refusal/force/link behavior is completely covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains the `id`/`ids` return shapes, the 1000 cap in transactional context, the partial-success error listing, and the PROD-663 rationale for `force`.

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 the specific verb+resource and immediately distinguishes the two modes (single `id` vs bulk `ids`). It also names the sibling alternative (save_supplier) for the archive case, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: send `id` for one, `ids` for many, use `force:true` to override the linked-expense refusal, or archive via save_supplier instead. Conditions and alternatives are spelled out rather than implied.

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