delete_creatorRemove a saved creator from this workspace’s cast by id (from list_creators). Records a cross-device delete so they don’t reappear on the user’s other devices. It only drops the roster entry — ads already rendered with that person are untouched — and the same portrait can be saved again with save_creator, so no confirm is needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the creator id (from list_creators) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it records a cross-device delete to prevent reappearance, clarifies that ads are untouched, and mentions reversibility via save_creator. These details go beyond the structured annotations and help the agent understand side effects. It does not cover auth or error handling, but it is strong.
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 is three sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value: cross-device behavior, scoping to roster-only, and reversibility. It is concise, well-organized, and every sentence earns its place.
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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, the description gives everything needed: how to get the id, what it does, side effects, and reversibility. It also disambiguates from save_creator. There is no output schema, but the operation is straightforward. The description is complete for correct invocation.
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?
The schema has one parameter (id) with a description 'the creator id (from list_creators)', providing 100% schema coverage. The description reinforces this by saying 'by id (from list_creators)' but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline for 100% coverage is 3, and the description does not exceed that.
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 a specific verb ('Remove'), a precise resource ('a saved creator from this workspace's cast'), and the method ('by id'). It explicitly references list_creators as the source of the id, distinguishing it from sibling delete operations like delete_skill or delete_brand. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 provides clear context: it is used to remove a creator from the workspace cast, with the id sourced from list_creators. It explains that the delete is not permanent ('can be saved again with save_creator') and that ads are unaffected, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., vs. other delete tools), but given the clear purpose, this is sufficient.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.