Tineo

cruise day delete

cruise_day_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Preview and commit cruise day delete operations atomically. First call cruise_get for expectedVersion. Omit confirmationToken to preview, show the changes to the user, then repeat the unchanged request with its token only after the user approves. Reuse idempotencyKey for retries. Omitting a field preserves it; null clears nullable fields. For commercial cruise reservations and sea/port days use cruise_* tools. Never substitute Activity, CruiseActivity or another segment type for a cruise day. Ordinary shore excursions remain valid Activity/CruiseActivity. If cruise tools are unavailable explain the limitation and ask for clarification.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "cruise_day_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes
`confirmationToken`	No	Omit to preview. After the user reviews and approves the exact preview, repeat the unchanged request with its token to commit. Never manufacture approval.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`success`	Yes
`contractVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description explains the preview/commit safety model, atomicity, expectedVersion requirements, idempotency-key reuse for retries, and that approval must never be manufactured. It also clarifies field omission versus null behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core preview/commit behavior and then moves through versioning, idempotency, field semantics, and routing warnings. It is dense but well organized; a few clauses could be trimmed without losing much, however.

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?

Given a destructive, workflow-driven delete tool with nested parameters, the description covers the essential preconditions, approval flow, retry behavior, and sibling-routing constraints. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values.

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 only 50%, but the description adds operational meaning for confirmationToken, expectedVersion, and idempotencyKey, including how preview and commit relate. It does not explain the operations array in detail, leaving some nested-parameter meaning to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: preview and commit cruise day delete operations atomically. It distinguishes cruise days from ordinary shore excursions and explicitly warns against substituting Activity or CruiseActivity, which helps separate it from sibling segment tools.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: call cruise_get for expectedVersion, omit confirmationToken to preview, show changes, then repeat the unchanged request with the token after approval. It also says to reuse idempotencyKey for retries and explains what to do if cruise tools are unavailable.

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

All Tineo tools Inspect

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

Need Help?