Delete a position permanently (admin only). Find by title or ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position_id | No | Position ID (optional if position_title is provided) | |
| position_title | No | Position title (optional if position_id is provided) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: the deletion is permanent (irreversible) and limited to admins. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as what happens to tasks or members associated with the position, nor error handling if no match is found.
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 exactly two sentences and every word earns its place. It front-loads the core action and permission, then provides lookup guidance without any redundant information.
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 simple delete tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does, admin requirement, and how to identify the target. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., both params provided) and return behavior, but these are minor for a delete operation. With no output schema, slightly more detail would be ideal, but the description is still quite complete.
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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds that you can 'find by title or ID', reinforcing the mutually exclusive nature hinted at in the schema. However, it does not clarify which parameter takes precedence if both are provided, nor does it state that at least one is required.
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 states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'position', with the qualifier 'permanently' indicating scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools by specifying the 'position' resource, making it unambiguous what this tool operates on.
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 specifies an 'admin only' restriction, providing a clear prerequisite for use. It does not explicitly compare alternatives, but the resource name 'position' clearly implies when to use this tool versus deleting other entities like projects or teams.
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 have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
