remove_client_faviconRemove a client's square logo/favicon (favicon_url). It falls back to the agency branding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Client ID (from list_clients) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The client with favicon_url cleared. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "The client with favicon_url cleared.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, and the description adds a meaningful consequence: removing the favicon falls back to agency branding. This adds context beyond the structured hints, though it does not address irreversibility, permissions, or effects on related branding fields.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler: the action comes first, then the fallback consequence. Every clause adds meaningful information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simple single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and a destructive annotation, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the operation, and the key outcome. It could mention whether the fallback depends on agency branding being configured, but that is a minor gap.
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% and the single parameter 'id' is already documented as 'Client ID (from list_clients)'. The description reinforces that the target is the client's favicon but adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description names a specific operation ('Remove') and a specific resource ('client's square logo/favicon (favicon_url)'), so an agent can identify what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with closely related siblings such as remove_client_logo or remove_account_favicon, but the 'client favicon' wording is clear enough.
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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like remove_client_logo or remove_account_favicon. The only implied use case is 'remove a client favicon,' which is essentially restating the tool's name and title.
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.