Growomat

Delete conversion action

delete_conversion_action

Destructive

Delete a conversion action. Permanently deletes the resource. Irreversible. Refuses with a conflict and names the campaigns when a campaign bids on this action — deleting it would change how that campaign spends. Pass force to delete anyway. Scoped to the active Space — see set_active_space to switch, or pass space_id to override for this one call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`force`	No	Delete even when campaigns bid on this action.
`space_id`	No	Override the active Space for this one call. Defaults to the active Space set via set_active_space (or GROWOMAT_SPACE_ID on the server). Pass to read/write a different Space without changing the session binding.
`conversion_action_id`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant detail: 'Permanently deletes the resource. Irreversible.' It also discloses the conflict behavior (refuses and names campaigns) and the force override, plus Space scoping behavior. This goes far beyond annotation basics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds distinct value: irreversibility, conflict handling, and scope override. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what is deleted, irreversibility, failure conditions, override mechanism, and space scoping. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% (conversion_action_id lacks description). The description explains force ('Pass force to delete anyway') and space_id ('pass space_id to override for this one call') in meaningful context. conversion_action_id is left implicit, but it is the required resource identifier and is obvious from the tool name.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Delete a conversion action.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_conversion_action, update_conversion_action, and get/list_conversion_action. It also adds irreversibility, making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (to permanently delete a conversion action) and explains the conflict scenario when campaigns bid on the action. It mentions set_active_space as an alternative for scope switching, but does not explicitly name alternate tools for deletion or when not to use. Still, the usage context is strong.

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

All Growomat tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (get_ad, update_ad, delete_ad), so entity-level tools are easy to distinguish. The main ambiguity is among reporting/status tools like get_conversion_status, get_conversion_health, get_conversion_report, and account_summary vs. get_performance_stats, which could tempt misselection without reading descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Naming is highly consistent: nearly every resource has create_/get_/update_/delete_/list_ variants, with predictable special verbs like set_, trigger_, preview_, and upload_. Minor exceptions like account_summary or get_angle_readout still follow the same readable verb-driven style.

Tool Count1/5

83 tools is an extreme surface for an MCP server, even one covering ad management. Most entities have full CRUD plus many custom readouts and report variants, which creates context bloat and makes tool selection unnecessarily expensive for the agent.

Completeness4/5

The platform covers the full campaign lifecycle: campaigns, ad groups, ads, keywords, assets, business/creative planes, conversion actions, sync, budget, and targeting are all represented. Minor gaps exist—conversion sources have create/list but no get/update/delete, and there is no explicit way to update or remove a conversion source—but these can be worked around.

Resources

Need Help?