Delete a saved credential. Blocked (not a permission or not-found error — a validation error) while any target still references it; repoint or remove those targets first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credentialId | Yes | UUID of the credential to delete. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While the destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a destructive operation, the description adds valuable context about the error type (validation error vs. permission/not-found) and the dependency on target references. This exceeds the annotation's simple flag.
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, each serving a distinct purpose: state the action and state a key constraint. No fluff, front-loaded with the main verb.
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 one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main function and an important edge case. It could mention irreversibility explicitly, but destructiveHint already implies it, so the description is 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%, so the schema already documents the only parameter. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond referencing 'a saved credential,' so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 leads with 'Delete a saved credential,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_credential and update_credential. The additional detail about being blocked when referenced adds further purpose clarity.
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 provides an explicit precondition: deletion is blocked while targets still reference the credential, with advice to repoint or remove those targets first. This acts as clear when-not guidance, though it does not name alternative tools for repointing/removal, preventing a perfect score.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.
The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.
78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.
The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.
