connections_script_deleteDelete one of this company's stored scripts by tool_name. Always allowed for your own company's rows - including tier-locked ones (deleting is how a downgraded account trims its vault).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person | No | Linked person to run this call as (first name). Omit to run as the connection's holder. | |
| project | No | Workspace to run this call in (id or name). | |
| tool_name | Yes | The script to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / personAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Linked person to run this call as (first name). Omit to run as the connection's holder.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / projectAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Workspace to run this call in (id or name).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable permission behavior beyond annotations: deletion is always allowed for the caller's own company, even for tier-locked scripts, and serves as the mechanism for trimming a downgraded vault. It does not clarify whether deletion is permanent or restorable via connections_script_restore.
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, front-loaded with the core action and scoped by tool_name. The tier-locked clarification directly follows and 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 destructive, non-read-only delete with annotations covering safety hints and no output schema, the description gives the key permission and scope context. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention whether deletes are permanent or recoverable despite a restore sibling existing.
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 person, project, and tool_name are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that deletion is keyed by tool_name, adding no new syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('stored scripts') scoped to 'this company's' scripts, identified by tool_name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like connections_script_get, connections_script_save, and connections_script_restore.
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?
It provides clear usage context: always allowed for your own company's rows, including tier-locked ones, and explains the downgrade-trimming use case. It does not explicitly name the restore sibling or state when to prefer restore over delete, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.
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.