soft-delete a chat session. 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": {
"chat_id": "<chat_id>"
},
"name": "delete_campaign_chat"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | Yes | chat session ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds two pieces of real context: the deletion is a soft delete (implying recoverability rather than permanent removal) and it requires write scope (an auth requirement). It still omits whether associated messages are affected or how to restore a soft-deleted session, so it is not fully complete.
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 with zero filler, and the core operation is stated first with the prerequisite trailing. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 one-parameter tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile and which has no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is deleted, that it is soft, and the required scope. A sentence on post-deletion behavior (retention of messages, restore path) would make it fully 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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents chat_id as a UUID chat session ID. The description adds no format, constraint, or validation detail beyond that, so this is the baseline case where structured data does the work.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("soft-delete a chat session"), and the "soft" qualifier meaningfully separates it from a hard delete among the delete_* siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling or scope boundary, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer it should call this when a campaign chat should be removed, and "requires write scope" gives a prerequisite. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of an alternative (e.g., rename vs delete), and no statement about what happens if the chat is already deleted.
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.