fynk MCP

Delete template party

delete-template-party

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a party from a template.

Use this tool when:

The user explicitly asks to remove a party from a template

A party cannot be deleted while it still has signature blocks bound to it. Delete those signature blocks first with delete-template-signature-block. Use get-template-info to discover the parties on a template and their UUIDs.

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": {
      "template_uuid": "<template_uuid>",
      "party_uuid": "<party_uuid>"
    },
    "name": "delete-template-party"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`party_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the party to delete (use get-template-info to find it)
`template_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the template the party belongs to

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deleted_party`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the blocking constraint on signature blocks and the required preparatory call. It stops short of saying anything about side effects on existing documents generated from the template, which would be the next useful detail.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a scannable bullet for the trigger and a short constraint paragraph. Slightly padded by restating the get-template-info lookup already present in the schema's party_uuid description.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description only needs to carry the preconditions and discovery path, both of which it does. Missing only edge-case behavior, such as whether deletion fails or cascades when the party is referenced elsewhere.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema, including the note to use get-template-info for the party UUID. The description repeats that same lookup hint without adding format or validation semantics, so it sits at the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a party from a template') that unambiguously separates it from siblings such as delete-template-signature-block, delete-document-signatory, and update-template-party. The scope (template parties, not document parties) is implicit in the name and title and reinforced by the dependency sentence.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering condition ('The user explicitly asks to remove a party from a template') and states a hard precondition: a party cannot be deleted while signature blocks are bound to it, use delete-template-signature-block first. It also points to get-template-info for discovery, so the agent knows the full call sequence.

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

All fynk MCP 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.

Resources

Need Help?