Skip to main content
Glama

Hermoso

by io.github.hermoso-ai

Delete a brand workspace

delete_brand
DestructiveIdempotent

PERMANENTLY delete a brand workspace and EVERYTHING in it — brand profile, memory, swipefile, Library creations, generated assets, avatars, skills, playbooks, chats — and disconnect its connected accounts. Irreversible, and it applies to everyone the workspace is shared with. Call it WITHOUT confirm first: it reports exactly what that workspace holds. Show the user that inventory verbatim, get an unambiguous yes, then call again with confirm:true — plus, if the workspace is not empty, confirmName set to its exact name and confirmConnectors set to the number of connected accounts it reported. Those two exist because confirming INTENT does not prove you picked the right WORKSPACE, and a wrong target is how a live brand was destroyed. The account's FIRST/anchor brand cannot be deleted this way (it holds the workspace's root storage) — that one is replaced from the app.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandYesbrand id or exact name from list_brands
confirmNoREQUIRED true — this destroys the whole workspace and cannot be undone
confirmNameNothe workspace's EXACT name, required when it is not empty — copy it from the inventory this tool returned, after the user has agreed to it
confirmConnectorsNothe number of connected accounts the inventory reported, required when there is at least one — the user must specifically agree to losing them, because reconnecting each needs a browser and no agent can do it

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond by detailing irreversibility, shared-workspace impact, and the exact safety mechanism behind confirmName and confirmConnectors. It also explains why the first brand cannot be deleted (root storage). This is substantive behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Though longer than typical, every sentence carries purpose. The safety warning is front-loaded, the workflow is sequential, and the rationale for the confirm fields is included without fluff. It avoids redundancy and is well-organized for an agent to parse under time pressure.

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?

Given the destructive nature and absence of an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's contract: what it destroys, the inventory returned on the first call, the required confirmations, and the edge case of the first brand. The agent has all necessary information to invoke it safely and correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds critical semantics: it explains the dual-call pattern (first call without confirm, second with confirm:true), the conditional requirements for confirmName (when not empty) and confirmConnectors (when at least one connected account), and the rationale that confirming intent does not prove correct workspace. This transforms the parameters from bare fields into a guarded workflow.

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 precise verb ('PERMANENTLY delete') and a specific, scoped resource ('a brand workspace and EVERYTHING in it') with an exhaustive list of what's included (brand profile, memory, swipefile, generated assets, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling delete tools (delete_playbook, delete_creator) by naming the full workspace scope, so the agent can immediately route correctly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides an explicit two-phase workflow: call WITHOUT confirm first to get inventory, show it verbatim, get unambiguous yes, then call again with confirm:true and the required confirmation fields. It also states the exclusion for the account's FIRST/anchor brand, which is a critical condition. This is model usage guidance with no ambiguity.

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

All Hermoso toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.

Tool Count1/5

293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.

Resources