delete_locationRemove a location from the locator. This is a soft delete: the row is retained so analytics history stays intact, and it can be restored from the dashboard. Pass ids instead of id to delete up to 200 in one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Location id. | |
| ids | No | Several location ids, to apply the same change to all of them in one call (at most 200). Use either id or ids. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / idsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Several location ids, to apply the same change to all of them in one call (at most 200). Use either id or ids.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 200,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "id"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds material context beyond them: soft delete, retained row, intact analytics history, and restorability from the dashboard. This tells the agent about side effects and reversibility. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core action, the soft-delete side effect, and the batch path. The most important information is front-loaded, with no filler or redundant examples.
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 2-parameter delete tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the key extra context an agent needs: soft-delete semantics and batch limits. The absence of return-value details is acceptable given there is no output schema and the behavior is sufficiently specified.
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%, so the schema already documents both `id` and `ids` fully. The description mostly restates the batch behavior and 200-item limit already present in the schema, adding no substantive new parameter semantics.
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?
Description uses 'Remove a location from the locator' with a clear verb and resource, and the title/batch mention makes the scope obvious. Even among create/update/list siblings, delete is unambiguous. The soft-delete clarification also distinguishes it from a hard delete.
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 clearly states what the tool does and explicitly covers the batch path with 'Pass ids instead of id', giving clear context for when to use it. It does not name alternatives or provide when-not guidance, but the tool's single purpose makes the intended use obvious.
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.