oauth.clients.deleteDelete an OAuth client by its public client ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clientId | Yes | Public OAuth client ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| http_status | Yes | HTTP status of the API response |
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description merely restates the action without adding any behavioral context beyond that (e.g., whether tokens are revoked, if the deletion is permanent, if any side effects occur). The description adds no value over the annotation, so it fails to enhance transparency.
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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word is functional. This is an exemplar of conciseness.
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 delete tool with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it misses any mention of irreversible consequences or potential authorization requirements, which would be useful contextual detail for an agent. It is not misleading but leaves some gaps.
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%, with the parameter 'clientId' clearly described as 'Public OAuth client ID'. The description repeats this identifier but does not add additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
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 the action 'Delete' with a specific resource 'OAuth client' and the key identifier 'public client ID'. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like oauth.clients.get, oauth.clients.list, oauth.clients.create, and oauth.clients.rotate_secret without ambiguity.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or situations where it should not be used. For a destructive operation, some context (e.g., 'use when you need to permanently remove a client') would be helpful, but it is absent.
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.
The resource namespaces make most tools easy to tell apart, and each action has a clear target. A couple of boundary cases exist, such as attachments.add versus mails.inject, since both relate to putting files on a simulated email, but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
Every tool follows the same resource.action convention, and the action verbs are predictable across the set, including delete_bulk and rotate_secret. The pattern is uniform even across different resource families, making the API very predictable.
With 40 tools, the surface is quite large for an MCP server, even though the namespaces are clean. Many singular and bulk delete variants could be combined or expressed as parameters to reduce the count, so the set feels heavier than it needs to be.
The server covers the main lifecycle needs for mailboxes, emails, attachments, archived mailboxes, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team management. Minor gaps remain, such as no mailbox update/rename, no manual archive action, and no invitation acceptance endpoint, but agents can work around these.