⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Permanently delete an endpoint. Cannot be undone. Only works for agent-created endpoints. PATs are preferred and require mcp:endpoints:write or mcp:*.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The unique slug identifier for the endpoint to delete | |
| apiKey | No | Legacy endpoint API key (x402_*) | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm deletion | |
| accessToken | No | Your dashboard MCP personal access token (sgl_pat_*) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses the destructive nature ('DESTRUCTIVE', 'Permanently delete', 'Cannot be undone'), the precondition (agent-created endpoints), and auth requirements. This is exactly the behavioral context needed for a destructive tool.
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 extremely concise: two sentences, with the critical warning front-loaded. Every word earns its place, covering purpose, danger, prerequisite, and auth in a compact form.
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 destructive tool, the description covers all essential context: what it does, irreversibility, scope limitation, and required permissions. No output schema exists, but the description's coverage of prerequisites and effects is sufficiently complete 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no direct parameter semantics beyond mentioning PAT preference, which slightly enriches accessToken. However, it does not compensate or add significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb (delete) and resource (endpoint) with a clear scope ('agent-created endpoints'). It also conveys irreversibility, distinguishing it from non-destructive endpoint tools like update_endpoint or get_endpoint_details.
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 explicit usage conditions: only works for agent-created endpoints, and requires mcp:endpoints:write or mcp:* with PATs. This gives clear context and an implicit exclusion for non-agent endpoints, effectively guiding the agent on when this tool is appropriate.
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 pair a clear verb with a distinct resource noun, so endpoints, agents, datasets, campaigns, products, and vault operations are generally easy to separate. The main risk is the repeated request_*_payment / *_with_payment pairs and the two create_*_with_payment tools, which are only distinguishable by reading descriptions carefully.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case, such as list_my_endpoints, update_campaign, and finalize_agent_registration, and the payment/request pairs are consistently named. The vault_* tools use a namespace prefix rather than verb-first names, and vault_how_to_backup breaks the action-oriented convention, so it is not perfectly uniform.
48 tools is a very large MCP surface, well beyond the 25-tool threshold where selection becomes a serious burden. Even though the server spans multiple domains, the count feels excessive for a single agent-facing tool set and should likely be split by domain.
The core endpoint, agent, marketplace, and payment flows are well covered, including creation, updates, stats, and two-phase x402 purchases. However, there is no create_product or delete_product, campaigns lack delete, and there is no way to list previously purchased datasets, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.