Dayze — Life Context

Delete Interaction

delete_interaction

Destructive

Contacts: delete one entry from a contact's history (interaction_id from get_person_interactions or log_interaction), e.g. one logged by mistake or for the wrong person. The contact is unchanged. If it was their latest, their last interaction becomes the next latest entry (none if it was the only one) and the next check-in follows. Confirm with the user first. Returns change_id: undo_contact_change(change_id) adds it back. Requires API key or OAuth with context.write and context.delete. ($0.05; API key required)

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": {
      "interaction_id": "<interaction_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_interaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`request_id`	No	Client idempotency key (retries return original result).
`interaction_id`	Yes	The interaction id from get_person_interactions or log_interaction.
`idempotency_key`	No	Alias for request_id.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	No	The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.
`deleted`	No
`message`	No
`change_id`	No	Pass to undo_contact_change to add it back.
`provenance`	No	Which connector wrote the record and which connected Dayze account received it.
`interaction`	No	The deleted history entry: interaction_id, person_id, person_name, kind, summary, occurred_at, source.
`last_interaction`	No	The contact's last_interaction_at and next_check_in_at after the delete (changed: true when this moved them), or null.
`life_state_rebuilt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: the contact record is unchanged, the last-interaction and next check-in are recalculated, auth scopes (context.write and context.delete) are required, and the change is undoable via change_id. This is exactly the behavior an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 action and scope, then consequences, then safety/auth/cost. Dense but every sentence carries information; minor redundancy between the parenthetical 'API key required' and the earlier auth sentence.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description goes further by explaining the returned change_id and its use, and it covers side effects, permissions, and user confirmation. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already states interaction_id comes from get_person_interactions or log_interaction, so the description largely repeats structured data. It says nothing about request_id/idempotency_key semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('delete one entry from a contact's history') and immediately scopes it to contacts, distinguishing it from the sibling delete_event/delete_place/etc. family. The provenance of interaction_id makes the target object unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use cases ('one logged by mistake or for the wrong person'), names the source tools to obtain the id, and includes a procedural guardrail ('Confirm with the user first') plus the recovery path via undo_contact_change.

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

All Dayze — Life Context 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.