Well

Delete card

well_delete_card

Destructive

Retire an unused card record in the current workspace. A card linked to a live payment method cannot be retired.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`card_id`	Yes
`workspace_id`	No	Target workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several — a write lands in exactly one workspace and this call would not say which.
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-supplied key. A retried write with the same key returns the original result instead of re-applying the operation.
`workspace_scope`	No	Restrict this call to the family: the token's primary workspace plus the company workspaces under it that you are a member of. Unrelated authorized workspaces drop out of the read; row reads merge across the family, while a per-workspace figure still reports exactly one workspace.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No
`error`	No
`card_id`	No
`success`	Yes
`reply_lines`	No
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
`near_candidates`	No
`newly_connected`	No	Tools that connected to this workspace since the last result and that no session was told about yet, oldest first. Present only when at least one tool is new. The connected-line rule says when to tell an entry; when it does, one line per entry, in the person's language: "<name> is connected.". Never fold several entries into one sentence. Each entry comes back once, on one result only: never repeat its line later.
`conversation_id_note`	No	Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
`conversation_id_source`	No	Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.
`near_candidates_truncated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / code
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / near_candidates

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "company_id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "company_id",
+      "name"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / near_candidates_truncated
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / reply_lines

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

AddedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a real behavioral constraint (live payment method blocks the operation) and scope (current workspace), but says nothing about reversibility, whether the record is soft-deleted, required permissions, or how errors surface — meaningful gaps for 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the core action first and the guard condition second; nothing is wasted. It is perhaps slightly over-compressed for a destructive tool, leaving no room for the reversibility detail an agent would want.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations carrying the destructive signal, an output schema present, and rich parameter descriptions, the description only needs to add constraint and consequence. It supplies the constraint but not the consequence (what happens to the card, whether it is recoverable), leaving the picture minimally viable for a delete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 80% and the schema already explains workspace_id, conversation_id, idempotency_key and workspace_scope in detail. The description mentions only the implicit card being retired and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (retire) and resource (card record) and scopes it to the current workspace, so it is distinguishable from well_update_card and well_create_card. The verb 'retire' is a softer synonym for the name's 'delete', which costs a bit of precision but does not make the purpose ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Retire an unused card record' plus 'A card linked to a live payment method cannot be retired' gives a clear precondition for when the call is valid. It does not name an alternative (e.g. update_card or detaching the payment method) for the blocked case, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Well tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?