inbox_deleteDelete one message of your webhook inbox for good. Works after the plan ended too.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | The message's id from inbox_messages. | |
| instance_id | Yes | Utility instance id from buy or list_utilities. | |
| passport_token | No | Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "instance_id": "inb_exampleexampleexample2",
+ "message_id": 42
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your amp_ token, only if your app has no sign-in and cannot send it as an Authorization header."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces permanence with 'for good' and adds a non-obvious availability fact (still works after plan ended) not captured in any structured field. It stops short of describing error behavior or auth nuances beyond the passport_token schema note.
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?
Two short sentences, with the core action and permanence front-loaded and the availability caveat second. Nothing is padding.
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 destructive two-required-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers permanence and availability, and annotations carry the safety profile. It could add what happens on a missing or already-deleted message id, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.
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%, with message_id and instance_id documented at the property level, including where each value comes from. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: delete one webhook inbox message, scoped to a single message. The single-message scope implicitly distinguishes it from bulk operations like inbox_bulk or inbox_ack, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
'Works after the plan ended too' tells the agent the tool remains usable post-plan-expiry, which is a real usage condition. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over inbox_bulk or inbox_ack, leaving alternatives to inference from sibling names.
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.