Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by com.koongo

delete_marketplace

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a marketplace. DESTRUCTIVE and NOT reversible from this surface: it stops syncing, is removed from the list, and ALSO hard-deletes the marketplace's feeds (channel profiles) and unregisters its webhooks — there is no restore tool here, so warn the user that deletion cannot be undone. 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 {integrationId, action:'delete', status:'deleted', kind}. marketplace_id is from list_marketplaces. project_id is OPTIONAL (inferred for a single-project customer; project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNo
project_idNo
marketplace_idYes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond the annotations: it details the full cascade of side effects (stops syncing, removes from list, hard-deletes feeds/channel profiles, unregisters webhooks), states irreversibility, and explains the confirm_required error path. No contradiction with the destructiveHint or readOnlyHint annotations is present.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: warning, side effects, confirmation requirement, error behavior, return shape, and parameter sourcing. The destructive warning is front-loaded, and the text remains readable despite covering multiple consequential details.

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 provides complete operational context: return value shape, error condition, side effects, irreversibility warning, and parameter prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It clearly explains confirm (must be true), marketplace_id (from list_marketplaces), and project_id (optional/inferred vs. required depending on customer type). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 the specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('marketplace'), clearly differentiating it from create/pause/resume/repair siblings. Immediately adds the critical destructive scope, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: warn the user, confirm first, then call with confirm:true; also specifies where marketplace_id comes from and when project_id is required. It does not explicitly name a less-destructive alternative like pause_marketplace, but the confirmation and prerequisites make usage conditions 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