Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OneLence

by com.onelence
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete a conversion event

onelence_delete_event_definition
Destructive

Removes a conversion event definition: OneLence stops counting that event as a conversion. Events and conversions already received are kept, no longer linked to it. Owners and admins only. The preview needs event_definition_id. Two steps: call with the change to get a summary and a confirmation_id, show the summary to the user, and only after they agree call again with just confirmation_id.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "onelence_delete_event_definition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmation_idNoOnly when applying: the confirmation_id from the preview, after the user agreed.
event_definition_idNoid from the event definitions list.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "oneOf": [
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "confirmation_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "expires_at": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "next_step": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "object": {
+          "const": "write_preview",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "status": {
+          "const": "confirmation_required",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "summary": {
+          "properties": {
+            "details": {
+              "items": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "type": "array"
+            },
+            "title": {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "title",
+            "details"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "object",
+        "status",
+        "confirmation_id",
+        "expires_at",
+        "summary",
+        "next_step"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "object": {
+          "const": "write_result",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "result": {
+          "anyOf": [
+            {
+              "properties": {
+                "deleted": {
+                  "const": true,
+                  "type": "boolean"
+                },
+                "id": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "object": {
+                  "const": "event_definition",
+                  "type": "string"
+                }
+              },
+              "required": [
+                "object",
+                "id",
+                "deleted"
+              ],
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            {
+              "type": "null"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        "status": {
+          "const": "applied",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "object",
+        "status",
+        "result"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds the context that matters: what survives the deletion (events and conversions already received are kept, merely unlinked) and who may invoke it. It also discloses the human-confirmation protocol, which is behavior an agent must respect and which no annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loads the operation and its consequence, then moves to authorization, then to the call sequence. Four short sentences, no filler, every clause carries operational information.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the destructive scope, retained data, permission gate, and the exact confirmation flow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including confirmation_id's 'only when applying' semantics. The description restates the preview/apply split at the tool level, which reinforces the lifecycle but adds little field-level meaning beyond 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 ('Removes a conversion event definition') and immediately defines what that operationally means: OneLence stops counting the event as a conversion. That disambiguates it from onelence_update_event_definition and onelence_save_event_definition without opening either 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?

Gives clear when-to-use conditions plus a mandatory two-step procedure: preview first, show the summary to the user, then call again with only confirmation_id. Also states the authorization prerequisite (owners and admins only). It never names an alternative action (e.g. rename/disable via update_event_definition), so it stops short of explicit sibling routing.

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

All OneLence 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