delete_saved_searchDelete a saved search by its ID. Only the owner may delete their own searches. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The numeric ID of the saved search to delete (from list_my_saved_searches). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds that only the owner can delete and authentication is needed, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded ('Delete a saved search by its ID').
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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action, ownership restriction, and authentication. It could mention return behavior, but is otherwise sufficient.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter already has a descriptive comment ('The numeric ID... from list_my_saved_searches'). The description does not add further parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description explicitly states 'Delete a saved search by its ID', clearly identifying the verb (delete) and resource (saved search). It distinguishes from sibling tools like save_search and list_my_saved_searches.
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?
Description specifies that only the owner may delete and authentication is required, providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the ownership condition serves as an implicit exclusion.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: listing CRUD, attachment upload workflow, search with interpret, geocoding, saved searches, and registry retrieval. No two tools overlap significantly; even the upload-related tools (sign, confirm, attach) are sequential and distinct.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_listing, get_registry, search_listings). The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.
With 15 tools, the server covers the core functionalities of a commercial real estate listing system without being bloated. Each tool serves a necessary role, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set is missing critical lifecycle operations: there is no way to delete or archive a listing, nor any tool to publish/unpublish a listing. This leaves an obvious gap in the basic CRUD workflow, which will cause agent failures when users need to remove or finalize listings.