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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / properties / success / descriptionPrevious value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$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 declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that favicon_url is removed and that branding falls back to the agency's. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The action and the key post-removal behavior are both communicated efficiently and the description is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description conveys the target and the post-condition clearly. It does not discuss irreversibility or permissions, but destructiveHint already signals the risk profile.
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?
The single parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Client ID (from list_clients)', so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at the baseline for full coverage.
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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (client favicon/favicon_url) and adds the fallback behavior. It is clear enough to be distinguished from account-level favicon removal, though it does not explicitly contrast with remove_client_logo.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus remove_client_logo, remove_account_favicon, or refresh_client_favicon. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.
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.