Delete a recipient
Deletes a recipient, its destinations, and any off-ramp account that paid out to it. Irreversible.
Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_token | No | Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header. | |
| recipientId | Yes | The recipient to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is irreversible and cascades to destinations and off-ramp accounts, which are critical side effects. It adds a note that the operation is free, though it does not mention authentication requirements or error behavior.
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 concise with a header and two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and side effects. The 'Free.' note is an extra detail that may be useful but not essential, and the header is slightly redundant with the first sentence.
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 delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what gets deleted, irreversibility, and cost. It does not describe return values or error scenarios, but these are less critical for a delete tool and the schema already documents both parameters.
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%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The tool description adds meaning to recipientId by explaining it triggers cascading deletion of related destinations and off-ramp accounts, which is not stated in the schema. This adds value beyond the structured fields.
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 and resource: 'Delete a recipient' and elaborates that it deletes the recipient, its destinations, and any off-ramp account that paid out to it. This goes beyond a generic description and distinguishes the tool from sibling delete tools by describing the scope of deletion.
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 when to use the tool through its clear purpose but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions. There is no guidance on when to choose delete_banking_recipient over delete_payment_recipient or other delete tools, though the tool name itself provides some disambiguation.
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.