soft-delete a contact. 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_contact"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | contact 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 genuinely new information: the delete is soft (so data is likely recoverable rather than permanently removed) and it requires write scope (an authorization prerequisite). What is missing is any note about downstream effects, e.g. contact handles or existing conversations.
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 fragments, zero filler, with the operation and its key qualifier front-loaded. Every clause carries information the agent needs.
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 destructive tool with clear annotations, the essentials are covered: what it affects, that it is reversible, and the scope needed. It does not state what the call returns on success (no output schema exists) or how linked records are handled, which leaves a real gap for a destructive operation.
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% for the single required "id" parameter, so the schema already carries full semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what is documented, which is the baseline expectation here.
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?
"soft-delete a contact" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the qualifier "soft-delete" separates it from a hard delete and from sibling mutations on other resources. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with update_contact, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as update_contact or a hard-delete path. The agent must infer the calling context entirely from the name and the word "soft-delete".
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.