Soft-delete a subscription
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the subscription to soft-delete. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| variant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "0198c1f4b2c07a1b9e4d5f6a7b8c9d0e"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID of the subscription to soft-delete."Input schema / properties / id / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "0198c1f4b2c07a1b9e4d5f6a7b8c9d0e"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'soft-delete', which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by clarifying the nature of the destructive action—data is not permanently removed but marked as deleted. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it could elaborate on reversibility or effects on related records. Given annotations already cover the safety profile, a 4 is justified.
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?
The description is a single, concise phrase with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable, and for a one-parameter tool this brevity is ideal.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, clear annotations), the description plus schema provides enough context. It could mention idempotency or behavior when the subscription doesn't exist, but that is not strictly necessary for a basic delete operation. The completeness is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter 'id', with description 'ID of the subscription to soft-delete.' The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 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 'Soft-delete a subscription' uses a specific verb ('soft-delete') with a specific resource ('subscription'), clearly distinguishing it from other subscription tools like create_subscription or update_subscription, and even adds the 'soft' qualifier to differentiate from a hypothetical hard delete. It is unambiguous and immediately conveys the core action.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for hiding subscriptions while retaining data, nor does it reference related tools like update_subscription or list_subscriptions. The description provides no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.
All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.
With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.
The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.