Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by com.koongo

delete_feed

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a feed (soft delete — the generated file and config are removed but it can be restored with restore_feed). DESTRUCTIVE: confirm with the user first, then call with confirm:true. Without confirm:true the call returns error 'confirm_required' (HTTP 400) and nothing is deleted. Returns {feedId, action:'delete', status:'deleted'}. feed_id from list_feeds; project_id OPTIONAL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNo
feed_idYes
project_idNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses soft-delete behavior, the confirm guard and its exact error/HTTP status, that nothing is deleted without confirmation, the return shape, and recoverability via restore_feed. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Four dense, purpose-driven sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded. Every sentence adds operational value: semantics, confirmation requirement, error behavior, return value, and parameter provenance.

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 simple 3-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers input semantics, required confirmation, error behavior, return value, and recovery path. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains confirm:true as required for deletion, identifies feed_id's source, and marks project_id as optional. It does not explain project_id's role further, but all three params receive at least meaningful semantic coverage.

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 clearly states 'Delete a feed' with specific soft-delete semantics, and explicitly references restore_feed, distinguishing it from other delete_* siblings. The resource and action are unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit operational guidance: confirm with the user first, pass confirm:true, and notes the error without it. It also tells the agent where feed_id comes from. It doesn't deeply contrast with alternatives, but the restore_feed mention and deletion context make the guidance clear.

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

All mcp-server toolsInspect
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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized around distinct resources (ads, marketplaces, feeds, orders, rules, sources) with clear action verbs, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate near-pairs like get_feed_status vs ad_status or set_feed_filter vs set_feed_attribute_filter. A few similarly named status/action pairs (e.g. ad_status vs get_ad, run_ad_item_action vs run_ad_operation) require careful reading, but overall the purposes are separable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, set_*, run_*, test_*). Minor deviations like ad_status and marketplace_status (noun-based status tools) and koongo_knowledge break the pattern slightly, but the convention is clearly recognizable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

At 105 tools, the surface is extreme and far beyond the 50+ threshold, even for a complex e-commerce integration domain. Much of the bloat comes from systematic triplication across ads, marketplaces, and feeds (e.g. three nearly identical map_*_attribute tools, three list_*_items, three get_*_report) that a generic resource parameter could have consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle of feeds, ads, marketplaces, order connections, rules, and imports, including create/read/update/delete, status monitoring, item-level actions, validation, repair, and restore. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete for standalone order connections and limited update capabilities for some entities, but these are workable and do not create dead ends for the core workflows.

Resources