Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mondovo

by com.mondovo.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete form submissions

delete_submissions
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete one or more form submissions from the Inbox. This is the Inbox's own delete: the submissions disappear from every view at once and are kept, hidden, for 14 days before they are purged permanently. Give full ids from list_submissions; every id must belong to this site or nothing is deleted. Contacts created from these submissions are not touched.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idYesThe site, from list_sites
user_goalNoOptional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. "add a page so customers can book tables"). No names, emails or other personal details.
submission_idsYesFull submission ids from list_submissions (1-500)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_goal
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. \"add a page so customers can book tables\"). No names, emails or other personal details.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds substantive context: immediate removal from every view, a 14-day hidden retention window before permanent purge, all-or-nothing deletion semantics, and an explicit statement that contacts are unaffected. This is exactly the extra behavior an agent needs before firing a destructive call.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the consequence, then the id-sourcing requirement and the side-effect disclaimer. No filler or restatement of the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the recovery window, atomicity, and the contact side effect, which are the high-stakes unknowns for a destructive tool with no output schema. The only gap is that it never states whether submissions can be restored during the 14-day window or what the call returns.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds value by specifying 'full ids' (i.e., UUIDs, not prefixes) and by stating the cross-parameter constraint that every id must belong to the supplied site or nothing is deleted. It does not mention the 1–500 item bound, but that is already in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Delete one or more form submissions from the Inbox') including batch scope, and disambiguates the entity by noting that contacts derived from the submissions are untouched. An agent can tell this apart from export_submissions or delete_privacy_data without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly directs the caller to obtain ids from list_submissions and states the precondition that all ids must belong to the given site. It does not name an alternative tool for the 'when not to use this' case, but the operational context is clear.

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

All Mondovo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources