Exclui jobs (projetos) do iClips. É destrutivo e não tem desfazer pela API. Aceita job_ids para remover vários de uma vez, em lote, com erro reportado por id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| job_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing no-undo behavior and per-id error reporting. The description makes the destructive nature explicit and explains batch semantics, though it does not mention potential cascading effects on related resources.
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?
Two dense sentences with no filler. The action and critical destructive warning are front-loaded, followed by the key batch behavior.
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?
Given the simple schema, presence of destructiveHint, and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what is deleted, that it is irreversible, and how batch deletion behaves. The only notable gap is the unexplained optional account parameter.
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?
Effectively explains the required job_ids parameter: it accepts multiple ids, works in batch, and reports errors per id. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the optional account parameter is not mentioned in the description, leaving one parameter undocumented.
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 action ('Exclui jobs (projetos)') and resource scope ('do iClips'), and adds batch-deletion behavior. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that create or update jobs.
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?
Provides clear context by warning that the operation is destructive and irreversible via the API, and explains that multiple job_ids can be removed in batch. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but no alternate delete-job sibling exists.
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.
Many tools are near-duplicates, such as iclips_financial_entries_get/list, iclips_pieces_get/list, iclips_pieces_write_create/update/checklist, and iclips_workflow_templates_get/list, all sharing essentially the same description. authenticate and connect also overlap on session/connection status, so an agent must rely on brittle naming conventions rather than clear semantic boundaries.
The iClips tools mostly follow iclips_<resource>_<action>, but the server mixes noun-only names like iclips_financial_accounts and marketplace, camelCase platform names like toolkit_info and show_version, and artificial get/list flattened duplicates. The pattern is only predictable within a subset of the tool list, not across the entire server.
At 30 tools, the set is over-inflated for its actual scope: most are flattened get/list or write-action variants of roughly a dozen underlying iClips operations, plus six unrelated platform utilities. The domain could be cleanly served in about half this many tools without losing functionality.
Jobs and pieces have reasonable CRUD coverage, but there is no client/group or destination master lookup even though clientId is required to create a job and destination_id filters financial entries. Job pieces and tasks also lack delete operations, and financial categories are not enumerable, leaving noticeable dead ends for common workflows.