deleteClarityProcessDelete a Clarity process. The creator or a team admin can delete it unless capture analysis is still in progress, or a Module runs it — a Module's process is part of the Module, so the Module has to be removed first. An automation built from the process keeps running, with its setup answers and people, but is no longer linked to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Clarity process id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond annotations: names permission requirements, blocking conditions (capture analysis, Module ownership), and post-deletion behavior of derived automations (keeps running, setup answers and people retained, unlinked). This is rich operational context that annotations only hint at via destructiveHint.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then permissions/exclusions, then side-effect behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.
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 single-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers who can call, when deletion is blocked, how to unblock (remove Module first), and what happens to dependent automations. 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and only one parameter 'id' with format uuid. Description doesn't add semantics to the id beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'Clarity process', and names side effects (automation unlinking) and constraints. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like deleteClarityProcessInviteLink or deleteClarityProcessLabel by focusing on the process itself.
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?
Explicitly states who can delete (creator or team admin) and when deletion is blocked (capture analysis in progress, or Module-owned process). No mention of alternatives like archive/duplicate, but the preconditions are clearly enumerated.
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.