delete_segment_group| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | The segment group to delete (from list_segment_groups). | |
| on_behalf_of | No | An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / on_behalf_ofAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the cascade effect on tags and classifications and flags the operation as 'Irreversible.' It also documents the return payload, which the absence of an output schema leaves otherwise unknown. It does not mention required permissions or whether on_behalf_of changes behavior, keeping it short of a 5.
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 destructive scope and irreversibility are front-loaded in a single tight summary, and the return shape is separated cleanly. 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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description closes the remaining gaps: cascade scope, irreversibility, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both group_id and on_behalf_of are already fully documented, including the sourcing of the ID and the agency-client semantics. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline of 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 (Delete) and resource (segment group), and goes further by defining the cascade scope: 'all its tags and classifications.' This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_segment_tag or delete_message_tag_group, which operate on narrower resources.
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?
Usage is implied by the destructive verb and the schema's '(from list_segment_groups)' hint for sourcing the ID, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., update_segment_group to modify rather than remove). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
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.