Soft-delete a signal template so it is no longer active while preserving it for historical tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| templateId | Yes | The unique identifier of the template to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as destructive and not read-only, so the agent knows side effects exist. The description adds that it is a soft-delete, meaning data is not destroyed but deactivated, which is meaningful beyond the raw hints. It also notes historical preservation, providing more behavioral context.
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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Soft-delete') and immediately specifies the resource and key behavior.
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?
With one parameter, full schema coverage, and helpful annotations, the description explains the core behavior (soft-delete, deactivation, historical preservation) adequately. No output schema exists, so return values are not required. The tool description is complete for its complexity.
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 description covers 100% of parameters, with templateId explicitly described as the identifier to delete. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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 explicitly states it 'soft-deletes a signal template,' making the action and resource clear. It distinguishes from siblings like signal_templates-update by emphasizing historical preservation and deactivation rather than modification.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use it: to make a template 'no longer active' while still preserving it for historical tracking. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to decide.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as signals-firmographics vs companies-enrich_firmographics, findEmail vs contacts-enrich_work_email, and monitors vs signal_subscriptions vs market_signals. While descriptions add some context, an agent could easily select the wrong tool due to the high similarity in function.
Most tools use a resource_subresource-action pattern, but there are inconsistent separators: underscores within some names, hyphens in others (e.g., scoring-assignment-bulk-create), and several camelCase exceptions (findEmail, findEmailBatchGet, getContactResearchByExternalID). This mixed convention makes the tool set feel unpredictable.
With 119 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Even for a comprehensive B2B data platform, the sheer number creates cognitive overload and increases the risk of incorrect tool selection.
The server covers an extensive range of operations: enrichment, lists, contacts, signals, subscriptions, monitors, and scoring. Nearly every resource has create, read, update, and delete or lifecycle equivalents, leaving very few practical gaps for the intended use case.
