soft-delete a campaign (sets status to deleted). requires write scope.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "delete_campaign"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | campaign ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully reframes that as a soft delete that only changes status, which materially changes an agent's risk calculus. It also adds the write-scope authorization requirement, which annotations cannot express; it stops short of saying whether already-deleted campaigns error or what the response contains.
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 compact clauses with zero filler, and the most important fact (soft-delete semantics) is front-loaded ahead of the scope requirement.
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 one-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and a complete input schema, the description supplies the two facts an agent needs: the operation is recoverable-by-status and requires write scope. Minor gaps remain around idempotency on already-deleted campaigns, but nothing critical is missing.
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 ('id', campaign ID, uuid format) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier beyond what structured data provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('soft-delete a campaign') and clarifies the operation's true nature (status set to deleted). It's clear which object is affected, though it never names a sibling to distinguish itself from tools like delete_audience or update_campaign.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, such as setting status via update_campaign or using delete_audience for related objects. The only implied guidance is the 'soft-delete' framing, which is not an explicit when/when-not statement.
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.