Delete a line and every endpoint under it, publishing the removal immediately. Requires edit access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lineKey | Yes | The line key, e.g. "v1". | |
| commitMode | No | Defaults to publish. Draft writes require draftRevision. | |
| draftRevision | No | Current line draft revision, required for draft writes. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as destructive (destructiveHint: true), and the description adds valuable context: the cascade to all endpoints, immediate publication of the removal, and the need for edit access. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies real-world effects.
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?
The description is two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the permission requirement as a brief second sentence. No wasted words; every element contributes to understanding the tool's behavior and requirements.
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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is affected (line and endpoints), when the effect is visible (immediately published), and the required permission. It relies on destructiveHint for irreversibility, which is acceptable given annotations. Slight gap: it doesn't explicitly warn that deletion is permanent, but the destructive hint and 'delete' wording suffice.
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%, with all three parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds minor context for lineKey ('every endpoint under it') but does not introduce meaning for commitMode or draftRevision beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly specifies the action ('Delete'), the resource ('a line'), and the scope ('every endpoint under it'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like deactivate_line or archive_project. It also notes the immediate publishing of the removal, which adds precision.
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 implies usage context (permanent deletion of a line and its endpoints) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as deactivate_line or archive_project. It provides a prerequisite ('Requires edit access') but no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance beyond the inherent meaning of 'delete'.
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.
