delete_onedrive_fileDelete a OneDrive item — it moves to the OneDrive recycle bin (recoverable there). Pass fileId (from list_onedrive_files) + confirm:true. Confirm the exact file with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileId | Yes | the OneDrive item id | |
| confirm | No | REQUIRED true |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the deleted item goes to the recycle bin and is recoverable. It also stresses the need for user confirmation, which is not conveyed by annotations. This extra behavioral detail justifies a 4, not just baseline 3.
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 concise sentences that pack essential information: purpose, consequence, prerequisite, and safety instruction. No fluff or redundancy; it is front-loaded with the primary action. It achieves maximum brevity without omitting critical details.
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 two-parameter delete tool with rich annotations (destructive, idempotent) and no output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: what it does, the effect (recycle bin), how to get the ID, and the required confirmation step. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that fileId should come from list_onedrive_files and that confirm must be true, clarifying the intended source and mandatory value. This enhancement warrants a 4.
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 ('Delete a OneDrive item') and specifies it pertains to OneDrive, distinguishing it from sibling delete tools for other platforms (e.g., delete_drive_file, delete_bluesky_post). It also adds a key consequence (moves to recycle bin) that aids unambiguous selection.
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?
It provides explicit usage steps: obtain fileId from list_onedrive_files, pass confirm:true, and confirm the exact file with the user. While it doesn't name alternatives, the OneDrive-specific resource and prerequisites clearly guide when to use it. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.
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.