job_card_deleteDelete a job card entered by mistake. One with labor or materials logged is refused, naming what it holds, because deleting it would lose the record of work done: archive it instead. The JC number is never reissued.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card | Yes | The job card id, e.g. JC-2026-0003, or the client name when only one card has it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that deletion is refused for cards with labor or materials, that the refusal names what it holds, and that the JC number is never reissued. This covers the key safety and side-effect behaviors. It does not mention whether deletion is permanent or if any confirmation is needed, but given the explicit refusal logic, it is close to complete.
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 efficient: three sentences, with the primary purpose in the first sentence, and key constraints and consequences in the following ones. It is slightly verbose in the second sentence but each clause adds important information. No extraneous words.
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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: when to use, what happens on refusal, and the permanent consequence of the JC number. It is missing the return format on success, but for a simple delete operation this is not critical. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly decide and call.
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 already provides a clear description of the 'card' parameter, including an example format and an alternative (client name). The description adds no additional parameter-specific details, but with 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is the baseline. It is adequate.
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), the resource (job card), and the specific condition (empty) that must be met for the delete to succeed. It distinguishes from siblings like job_card_update_status or job_card_create by focusing on deletion and by mentioning what it is not for (cards with logged work).
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to delete a job card entered by mistake and only if it has no logged labor or materials. It also provides an explicit alternative: archive the card instead if it has content, and warns that the JC number is never reissued, which prevents misuse.
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.