destroy_resumeentriesSoft-removes a resume entry (is_deleted=true); the row is retained and drops out of subsequent lists. Requires the company_id path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even though annotations already include destructiveHint=true, the description adds crucial context: it reveals the exact mechanism (`is_deleted=true`), confirms data retention, and explains list behavior. This is valuable because 'destroy' often implies permanent deletion, and the description corrects that assumption. It also adds a requirement (`company_id`), though it mislabels it as a path parameter when the schema shows it in the body.
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 sentences, front-loads the most critical information (soft delete, retention), and avoids redundancy. Every piece of text serves a distinct purpose: defining the action, explaining the mechanism, listing consequences, and noting a prerequisite.
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 low-complexity delete tool, this covers behavior, side effects, and a prerequisite. It doesn't describe return values, but with no output schema and simple semantics, that's acceptable. The only minor gap is not explaining what happens to related data or whether the operation is reversible, but it's not strictly necessary.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate. It does mention `company_id`, which adds value, but completely omits the `pk` parameter from the description. Additionally, it incorrectly refers to `company_id` as a 'path parameter' when the schema indicates it's in the body. Partial compensation with room for improvement.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it soft-deletes a resume entry by setting `is_deleted=true`. The specific verb 'soft-removes' plus the resource 'resume entry' provides clarity that can't be mistaken for other operations, distinguishing this from hard-delete or update tools.
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?
By explaining that the row is retained and 'drops out of subsequent lists,' the description implies this is the soft-delete alternative to a full delete. It could more explicitly say 'use this instead of define to keep the row,' but the context makes the use case clear. A slight deduction for not naming an alternative tool or giving when-not-to-use scenarios.
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.