delete_booking_pageONLY unassigned + never received a request. Anything attached or holding content is refused (409) — relay the reason to the owner, never retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | The booking page ID (from list_booking_pages) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare the operation destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the exact precondition, the 409 refusal case, and the operational instruction to relay the reason to the owner and never retry. This gives an agent strong guidance on what will happen and how to respond.
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 compact and front-loads the most important condition ('ONLY unassigned...') before explaining the refusal behavior and follow-up action. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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?
For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers eligibility, failure mode, error code, and next steps. It does not explicitly describe success behavior, but that is easily inferred from the tool name and destructive annotation, making the gap minor.
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 input schema fully documents the single pageId parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain it. Baseline 3 applies because the description adds no extra meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
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 name and title clearly identify the resource and action, and the description narrows the scope with 'ONLY unassigned + never received a request.' However, the description itself never explicitly states a verb like 'deletes,' so the core purpose relies on the title rather than being fully stated.
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 usage boundaries: success requires an unassigned page with no prior request, and pages that are attached or hold content will be refused with a 409. It also instructs never to retry, but it does not name an alternative tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action, and the descriptions are detailed enough to avoid most misselection. The main ambiguity is between deploy_files and deploy_website (both deploy a site, one multi-file and one single-file), and get_project versus get_project_files versus list_projects require careful reading.
Every tool follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, delete_*, update_*, upload_*, assign_to_project, unassign_from_project, configure_chatbot. There are no camelCase names, vague verbs, or mixed conventions.
At 29 tools, this exceeds the comfortable MCP surface and crosses into the 'too many' range. The breadth is somewhat justified by the number of subdomains (projects, files, forms, data, bookings, chatbot, media), but several getters and listers could be consolidated without losing capability.
The tool set covers a full website build lifecycle: account checks, content modeling, media upload, deploy, assignment, chatbot configuration, and post-deploy file edits. Minor gaps remain: booking pages and form settings are intentionally read-only via the MCP, and there is no chatbot deletion or teardown tool.