Remove a station. Confirm with the operator first.
A station that never produced a lead is deleted. One that already produced
leads is switched off instead, to keep that history; the reply says which
("deleted", or "paused" with reason "has_history").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| station_id | Yes | The station's id, from list_stations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / station_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The station's id, from list_stations."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=true) by disclosing the conditional behavior: stations without lead history are truly deleted, while those with history are only paused to preserve it. It also names the exact reply values ('deleted', or 'paused' with reason 'has_history'). That is exactly the kind of outcome disclosure an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.
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 short sentences plus a brief explanatory paragraph; the destructive action and its prerequisite are front-loaded, and every sentence carries distinct information (prerequisite, branching logic, return values).
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the response strings, and the branching delete/pause behavior removes the main ambiguity for a destructive tool. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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% and the single parameter is documented there ('the station's id, from list_stations'). The description adds no further parameter syntax or format detail, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a station') and immediately distinguishes the two possible outcomes (deleted vs. paused). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like add_station, update_station, and preview_station without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly states the prerequisite 'Confirm with the operator first,' which is real guidance for a destructive operation. It does not name an alternative tool for cases where the user wants a softer action, but the delete-vs-pause logic is covered inside the tool itself.
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.