Well

Delete person

well_delete_person

Destructive

Delete a person (contact) from the current workspace (soft delete).

Use this tool when the user asks to delete, remove, or archive a contact.

REQUIRED: person_id

This soft-deletes the person and its company_person relationships. Linked companies themselves are NOT deleted. The authenticated user cannot delete their own person record.

Returns { success: true, person_id } on success, or { success: false, error } on failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`person_id`	Yes	The UUID of the person to delete (required)
`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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`person_id`	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.
`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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id_note

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id_source

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.",
+  "enum": [
+    "host_meta",
+    "argument",
+    "minted"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / workspace_id / description

Previous value: -"Target workspace. Omit to use the only authorized workspace, or (for read tools) to query all authorized workspaces grouped by workspace. Required for write tools when the token authorizes more than one workspace."New value: +"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."

First observedJul 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: soft-delete semantics, deletion of company_person relationships only, linked companies NOT being deleted, the self-delete restriction, and the exact success/failure return shapes. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is tightly structured and front-loaded, with the core action and trigger condition first, followed by key constraints and the return contract. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the return format is clearly specified without excess.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive tool with rich schema descriptions for all four parameters and an output shape already stated in the description, nothing essential is missing. The description covers side effects, restrictions, and error handling, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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 100%, and the schema already documents person_id, workspace_id, conversation_id, and idempotency_key in detail. The description restates person_id as required and adds deletion-related behavior, but it does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a person (contact) from the current workspace') and distinguishes the tool by adding 'soft delete' plus the scope of what is and is not deleted. This differentiates it clearly from sibling tools like well_delete_company and well_delete_invoice.

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?

It explicitly tells an agent when to use it: 'Use this tool when the user asks to delete, remove, or archive a contact.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as removing only a contact channel via a sibling tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?