supplier_removeRemove a supplier from the directory by SUP number or name, returning the record as it stood so nothing is lost silently. The SUP number is never reissued. On the free tier the slot is freed for another supplier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| supplier | Yes | The supplier id, e.g. SUP-2026-0003, or the name when only one supplier has it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context: the prior record is returned so nothing is lost silently, SUP numbers are never reissued, and free-tier slots are freed. This goes well beyond the structured hint data and gives the agent a realistic model of side effects.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary action and lookup method are front-loaded, and each additional sentence adds distinct behavioral information. It is compact without sacrificing useful detail.
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?
The tool has a single documented parameter and no output schema, yet the description explains what will be returned and key side effects. The destructive behavior is covered by annotations and expanded in the description. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?
The schema already documents the supplier parameter fully, including the SUP format example and the name-only-when-unique condition. The description repeats the 'by SUP number or name' idea but adds little beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Remove a supplier from the directory'. It further clarifies lookup by SUP number or name and notes that the removed record is returned. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like supplier_add, supplier_update, and supplier_list.
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 intended context is explicit: this tool removes a supplier from the directory, and the lookup mechanism is described. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the removal purpose is clear enough against the CRUD sibling set. A small deduction for lacking an explicit 'use supplier_update instead for edits' type exclusion.
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.