Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lemlist_delete_activity_transcript

Delete the recording transcript attached to a call activity.

Its own tool because it is the only destructive gesture on the activity log — a transcript deleted here is not recoverable through the API.

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": {
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>"
    },
    "name": "lemlist_delete_activity_transcript"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
activity_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well on the most important point: it explicitly declares the operation destructive and that the transcript is not recoverable through the API. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether the parent call activity itself is affected.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the irreversibility warning immediately after. No padding and every clause adds needed information.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical irreversibility warning but leaves gaps around required scope/permissions and how to resolve the activity_id. Adequate but not complete for a mutation tool whose safety profile rests entirely on prose.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the scoping parameters (_org, _group, _run_id, _project, _instance) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The bare 'activity_id' is undocumented in the schema, and the description only implies it identifies the call activity whose transcript is removed — no format or sourcing detail is added.

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 a specific verb and resource: deleting the recording transcript attached to a call activity. The second sentence explains why it exists as a standalone tool ('the only destructive gesture on the activity log'), which separates it from the read-oriented lemlist activity siblings like lemlist_get_activities without needing to name them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the destructive semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note on how to obtain the activity_id (presumably via lemlist_get_activities), and no stated prerequisites. An agent must infer the workflow from context.

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

All Tulina 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