Skip to main content
Glama

SUNAGO Matrix

by com.sunago-matrix

Delete manual allocation

resources_delete_allocation
Destructive

PERMANENTLY delete a manual (non-project) resource allocation. There is no recycle bin for allocations - this cannot be undone. Requires explicit human confirmation: never fill in confirm/confirmation_phrase on your own initiative. For project team allocations, use projects_remove_team_member.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true. The HUMAN running this agent must set this - not the agent.
allocation_idYes
confirmation_phraseNoMust exactly equal the allocation id. The HUMAN must supply this.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description clearly discloses the irreversible nature: 'There is no recycle bin for allocations - this cannot be undone.' It also explains the human confirmation requirement, which goes beyond the annotation destructiveHint=true and provides essential safety context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, each earning its place: irreversibility, human confirmation requirement, and sibling tool routing. The destructive action is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, permanence, the human-in-the-loop confirmation requirements, and the alternative for project allocations. Combined with the destructiveHint annotation, an agent has everything needed to invoke it safely.

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 67%, and the schema already documents allocation_id, confirm, and confirmation_phrase. The description adds crucial meaning to confirm and confirmation_phrase by requiring human supply, which is not fully explicit in the schema alone. It does not add detail on allocation_id, but the schema covers that.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'PERMANENTLY delete a manual (non-project) resource allocation.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling projects_remove_team_member, so an agent can confidently select this tool for manual allocations only.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool (manual, non-project allocations) and when not to (project team allocations → use projects_remove_team_member). It also gives a critical usage rule: never fill in confirm/confirmation_phrase without human action.

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

All SUNAGO Matrix toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.

Naming Consistency4/5

The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.

Tool Count1/5

With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.

Resources