Delete (soft-delete) one of the USER'S OWN listings by listing_id. Only the owner can delete. No credit is refunded — the listing was already published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds important behavioral context: the operation is a soft-delete, only the owner may perform it, and no credit is refunded. This meaningfully enriches what the agent can infer from the annotations alone.
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 with no filler. The action, scope, permission, and consequence are all front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.
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?
Given the single parameter, clear annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential details: what happens, who may do it, and a key financial consequence. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.
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 provides only the listing_id type and length with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that listing_id refers to one of the user's own listings, giving the parameter practical meaning and constraints beyond the raw schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('one of the USER'S OWN listings') with a clear scope restriction. It also clarifies 'soft-delete', which distinguishes it from permanent deletion and from sibling tools like update_listing or set_listing_status.
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 clearly communicates when the tool should be used: to delete a listing owned by the current user, and only by the owner. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the ownership and soft-delete context provides solid guidance.
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.