neuron_delete_ad_requestPermanently delete a draft ad request. Only ad requests in draft status can be deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adRequestId | Yes | Unique identifier (UUID) of the draft ad request to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint: true). The description adds the insight that deletion is permanent and restricted to draft status, providing useful context beyond annotations. No side effects or authorization details are mentioned, but the destructiveness is well covered.
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?
The description consists of two straightforward sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action and constraint, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the simple input schema (one parameter) and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and its precondition. It provides all necessary context for correct invocation without requiring additional details.
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?
There is only one parameter (adRequestId) and its schema description is already comprehensive ('Unique identifier (UUID) of the draft ad request to delete'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('permanently delete'), the resource ('draft ad request'), and a key constraint ('only draft status'). This distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools and makes the tool's purpose 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?
The description specifies the condition under which the tool should be used (only draft ad requests), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like updating or pausing non-draft requests. Still, the condition is clear enough for correct selection.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type, but there is meaningful overlap in messaging entry points (send_message, send_whatsapp, compose_message, bot_api_send) and contact ingestion/sync tools (import_contacts, populate_contacts, sync_whatsapp_contacts). The descriptions help disambiguate, but with 309 tools an agent will frequently need to read closely to pick the right one.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*. Minor deviations like sales_stats, lead_stats, wallet_balance, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but overall naming is highly predictable.
309 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, even a broad platform. This creates significant cognitive load and navigation overhead for agents, and far exceeds the well-scoped 3-15 tool range where coherence is strongest.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across bots, contacts, campaigns, flows, knowledge bases, personas, marketplace, wallet, and products. Minor gaps exist — lead sources lack update/delete tools, and there is no single get_task or get_webhook alongside their list/update/delete counterparts — but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.