Delete a client
client_deleteDestructiveIdempotent
Permanently remove a customer from the shop's customer file by their ID.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the customer to delete |
Kash.click
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Permanently remove' which aligns with destructive, but does not disclose additional behaviors like cascading effects or idempotency edge cases.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 12 words, with no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool simplicity (1 param, no output schema, annotations covering destructive nature), the description is complete. It could mention return value or side effects, but the lack of output schema reduces expectation.
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 coverage is 100% and the description adds nothing beyond the schema's parameter description ('ID of the customer to delete'). Baseline score of 3 for high coverage.
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 uses a specific verb 'remove' and identifies the resource 'customer from the shop's customer file', with the method 'by ID'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like client_add and client_edit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No mention of when deletion is appropriate or when editing would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct entity or action (account, client, order, product, payment, VAT, etc.), with clear naming like 'account_create' vs 'account_edit' and 'data_list_' prefixed listings. No overlapping purposes detected.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., account_create, client_add, data_list_clients). Even compound names like auth_login_with_otp adhere to this structure.
Tool Count4/5
41 tools is high but justified by the wide scope of a POS/accounting system (accounts, clients, orders, products, payments, VAT, reports). Slightly above the typical range but well-scoped.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers CRUD for all major entities (clients, departments, products, VAT, payment modes, orders), plus queries, reports, and authentication. No obvious gaps for a small business management server.