hub_delete_productRemove a product from the merchant's catalogue. Takes the product ID ONLY — look it up with get_products and never guess. CONFIRM WITH THE MERCHANT BEFORE CALLING, naming the product: this also removes all of its variants and there is no undo. If several products match, list them and ask which one instead of picking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | Product id from get_products — not a name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial cascade behavior (all variants are removed too) and the irreversibility ('no undo'), plus the mandatory merchant-confirmation gate. These are material traits the annotations alone do not convey.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the scoping rule, then the confirmation requirement and the multi-match fallback. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 supplies everything an agent needs: identity source, confirmation gate, cascade scope, and irreversibility. Nothing relevant is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema text ('Product id from get_products — not a name') already carries the semantics. The description's 'takes the product ID ONLY — never guess' reinforces but does not add new parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource — 'Remove a product from the merchant's catalogue' — which cleanly separates it from the many sibling delete tools (hub_delete_category, hub_delete_modifier, etc.). An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly prescribes the workflow: look the ID up via get_products, never guess, confirm with the merchant naming the product, and if several match, list them and ask rather than picking. This is when-to-use, prerequisites and a disambiguation rule all in one.
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.