Remove a collection point. Money is integer minor units (cents). Calling this changes nothing: it returns a preview of what would change and a confirmation link. Only the merchant, on that page, can make it happen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The collection point to remove, by name. Case does not matter. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does disclose non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations — it returns a preview plus a confirmation link, and only the merchant can complete the removal. However, it directly conflicts with the structured hints: readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true say the call may modify the environment, while the description says "Calling this changes nothing." An agent cannot tell whether invoking this is safe or destructive.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded and the four sentences are short, but the sentence "Money is integer minor units (cents)" is irrelevant to this tool (there is no monetary parameter) and appears to be copied from a sibling, diluting an otherwise tight description.
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?
The two-step preview/confirmation workflow is essential context and is captured, which is good given there is no output schema. But the contents of the "preview" are left vague, and the unresolved conflict with the destructive/read-only annotations leaves an agent unsure of the tool's real effect.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single `name` parameter is fully documented in the schema (including case-insensitivity), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Remove a collection point") that is clearly distinct from the sibling pickup_set_location. It loses a point because it immediately walks the verb back ("Calling this changes nothing"), leaving the actual effect of the call slightly ambiguous at first read.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: you call this when you want a collection point removed, and the description usefully explains that the call only starts a merchant-confirmed flow. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives (e.g. pickup_set_location for adding/editing).
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.
