Schedule the API key's workspace for permanent deletion (7-day grace window). Reversible only via the email magic-link sent to the owner. Subsequent MCP calls with this key will fail not_found until cancelled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavioral details beyond the destructiveHint annotation: grace window, reversibility via email, and subsequent call failures. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with key information, no fluff.
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 0-parameter destructive tool with annotations, the description fully explains behavior, reversibility, and side effects, making it complete.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%, so description does not need to add param information. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'schedule for permanent deletion', resource 'workspace', and key details like '7-day grace window', distinguishing it from other workspace operations.
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?
Implies usage for deleting a workspace, mentions reversibility, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'archive_project' or provide when-not guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear separation between CRUD operations, workflow management, and administrative tasks. No two tools appear to have overlapping purposes; even similar-sounding tools like list_change_requests and pinappai_list_apply_inbox serve different contexts.
The tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern, with a subset of workflow-related tools consistently prefixed with 'pinappai_'. There is no mixing of naming conventions, making the function of each tool predictable from its name.
With 38 tools, the server is significantly over the typical well-scoped range. While the tools cover many aspects of the platform, the sheer number makes it heavy for an agent to navigate effectively.
The server covers core operations for projects, workspaces, members, and API keys, but lacks programmatic creation, update, and individual deletion of change requests. This creates notable gaps in the ability to fully manage the CR lifecycle programmatically.
