Replaced by Teppek.
Duplicate listing. Use the main Teppek connector.
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 | Listing id, taken from the `id` field of search_listings, semantic_search or list_my_listings results. Example: "adzuna-us-5947308680". |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / listing_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Listing id, taken from the `id` field of search_listings, semantic_search or list_my_listings results. Example: \"adzuna-us-5947308680\"."Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds genuinely new context — soft-delete rather than hard delete, owner-only authorization, no credit refund — but does not say what happens to the listing's conversations, images, or visibility after deletion.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then constraints. Every sentence carries information; no padding or repetition of the schema.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destructive-but-recoverable nature, authorization, and credit implications. It leaves some ambiguity about post-deletion state of related resources, which matters for a destructive tool.
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 listing_id schema entry already documents the id format, source fields, and an example. The description adds nothing beyond naming the parameter, which is the expected baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete ... listings') plus the key qualifier 'soft-delete', which distinguishes it from a hard delete and from sibling status-changing tools like set_listing_status. Ownership scoping ('USER'S OWN') further narrows it.
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?
Implies usage through the ownership restriction and notes the side effect about credits, but never states when to prefer it over set_listing_status or update_listing, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond ownership.
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.