Timix.AI

permanent_delete_entity

Permanently and IRREVERSIBLY hard-delete an entity from the recycle bin. The entity and all its children are removed from the database — this cannot be undone. Requires Admin role. Call once with no token to preview; re-call with the returned confirm_token and an idempotency_key to commit. entity_type must be one of: Customer, Project, Task, SubTask.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`entity_id`	Yes	Id of the recycle-bin entity to permanently delete.
`entity_type`	Yes	Type of entity to permanently delete. One of: Customer, Project, Task, SubTask.
`confirm_token`	No	Token returned by the preview (call this tool once with no token to get it). Required to commit; expires in ~10 minutes.
`idempotency_key`	No	Required when committing (confirm_token present): retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses irreversible deletion, child entity removal, role requirement, and the commit pattern. It does not cover error conditions or rate limits, but provides sufficient behavioral detail for 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (3 sentences), front-loads the irreversible nature, and logically flows from purpose to usage steps. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While the description covers core behavior and usage, it lacks details about the return value (e.g., preview token structure) and error scenarios. Given the complexity of the two-step operation, this omission slightly reduces completeness.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds context beyond the schema: the two-step process, confirm_token origin, idempotency_key purpose, and entity_type constraints, thus providing meaningful semantic value.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: permanently and irreversibly hard-delete an entity from the recycle bin. It specifies entity types and the two-step process, distinguishing it from other deletion tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use (permanent deletion from recycle bin), requires Admin role, and outlines the two-step preview-commit process. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like soft-delete.

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

All Timix.AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_time_report and log_time both create a single time entry with near-identical descriptions. There are also many similar getter/list tools that blur together, making it hard for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent: 'list' vs 'get' for similar operations, 'manage' combines create/update/delete, and 'use_favorite' is an outlier. This pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count1/5

With 114 tools, the set is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped server (typical 3-15). This overwhelms agents and suggests many tools could be consolidated or removed.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers a broad domain including customers, projects, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and user management, but there are gaps like no list_users or direct user listing, and some operations seem redundant rather than filling missing functionality.

Resources

Need Help?