Pizza Developer

Delete delivery

delete_delivery

Destructive

Delete a delivery. Its batches come out of it unassigned, ready to go into another one; they are not deleted. Its release presentation is deleted with it. Deleting a shipped delivery rewrites public history on the Public Delivery Page. confirmName must equal the delivery's exact name, the free-form label it was created with. archive with kind delivery hides a delivery and keeps it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "confirmName": "<confirmName>"
    },
    "name": "delete_delivery"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Id of the Delivery.
`confirmName`	Yes	The Delivery's exact name, to confirm deletion.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirmName

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The Delivery's exact name, to confirm deletion.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "confirmName"
+]

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond that: batches are unassigned (not deleted), the release presentation is deleted, and shipped deliveries rewrite public history. It also explains the confirmName safety mechanism and the idempotency-relevant archive alternative.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and its key side effect come first, followed by confirmation mechanics and the archive alternative. Every sentence carries information, though it packs several distinct facts into a single paragraph.

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 mutation's consequences, the confirmName requirement, and the archive alternative. Missing an explicit statement about reversibility or permissions, but for a delete tool with full annotation coverage this is notably complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by clarifying that confirmName must equal the delivery's exact name – 'the free-form label it was created with' – which goes beyond the schema's terse 'to confirm deletion' description.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and immediately clarifies the crucial side-effect (batches are unassigned, not deleted), which distinguishes this from a naive destructive delete. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus siblings like delete_batch or archive.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the alternative ('archive with kind delivery hides a delivery and keeps it'), giving the agent a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-that decision. The confirmName requirement is also stated as a precondition.

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

All Pizza Developer tools Inspect

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

Need Help?