Delete a recipient
Deletes a recipient, its destinations, and any off-ramp account that paid out to it. Irreversible.
Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipientId | Yes | The recipient to delete. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / auth_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses cascade deletion (destinations and off-ramp accounts), irreversibility, and that the operation is free. Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description enriches this with specifics that matter for agent decision-making, and it does not contradict any annotation.
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 exceptionally concise—two sentences plus a short paragraph—yet it front-loads the core action ('Delete a recipient') and packs in essential behavioral details (cascade, irreversibility, cost) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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 low-complexity delete tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs: what gets deleted, reversibility, and cost. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication, but that is implicit for API tools and not a significant gap here.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (recipientId) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3 where the schema carries the semantic load.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'recipient', and goes further to specify the scope: it deletes the recipient, its destinations, and any off-ramp account that paid out to it. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_payment_recipient and delete_address_book_entry, which target different resource types.
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—use it to delete a banking recipient—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not guidance. While the sibling list includes similar delete tools, no exclusion criteria are given, so an agent must infer the correct choice based on the resource type.
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.