destroy_attachmentsSoft-delete an attachment belonging to a company you are a member of: the record is kept for history but disappears from list_attachments. Scoped to the company — you cannot delete an attachment belonging to another tenant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructive=true), the description adds the crucial soft-delete behavior: the record is kept for history but hidden from list_attachments. It also discloses the tenant-scoping restriction. This enriches the annotation data meaningfully.
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 sentences, both dense with useful information. The first sentence states the action and its consequence; the second explains the tenant restriction. No fluff or repetition.
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 two-parameter delete operation with good annotations, the description covers the core behavior (soft-delete), the scope (company membership), and the side effect (disappears from list). No output schema is present, but the description does not need to detail return values for a simple delete.
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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (company_id and pk). The description reinforces the meaning of company_id by emphasizing company membership and scoping. It doesn't add new parameter syntax, but the schema coverage is high, so the baseline is 3 and the added scoping context raises it.
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 opens with the specific verb 'soft-delete' and the resource 'attachment', immediately clarifying the action. It also distinguishes this tool from related list/retrieve tools by stating the record 'disappears from list_attachments' and that deletion is scoped to the company.
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 clear context: the tool is for deleting attachments you own within a company you belong to, and it cannot delete another tenant's attachments. It implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X'.
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.
Most tools are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.