Tineo

cruise delete

cruise_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Preview and commit cruise 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_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?

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavior: atomic preview/commit, reuse of idempotencyKey for retries, omit-preserves vs null-clears patch semantics, and an anti-fabrication rule ('Never manufacture approval'). It also handles the degraded case where cruise tools are unavailable.

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 workflow, then constraints, then segment-type guardrails — every sentence carries instruction. Minor redundancy: the preview/commit and 'never manufacture approval' guidance partially restates the confirmationToken schema description, costing a little tightness.

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?

For a destructive, nested-parameter mutation with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers sequencing, idempotency, approval gating, patch semantics, and domain boundaries. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 50%, and the description compensates well for the two top-level parameters: confirmationToken's preview-vs-commit meaning and idempotencyKey's retry role are both explained in prose. expectedVersion is tied to cruise_get. The nested operations array (kind const, up to 250 items) and cruiseId nullability are left entirely to the schema, so it is not fully compensating.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('cruise delete operations') plus the two-phase preview/commit model, and later sentences distinguish it from cruise_day_delete, segment_delete and generic Activity segment types. An agent can tell what this tool deletes and what it does not without opening the schema.

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 prescribes a concrete workflow (call cruise_get for expectedVersion first, preview by omitting confirmationToken, show changes, then repeat the unchanged request with the token after approval) and gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('Never substitute Activity, CruiseActivity or another segment type for a cruise day', with shore excursions carved out as still valid).

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?