DELETE /inbox/automations/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| query | No | Optional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas. | |
| brand_id | No | ||
| workspace_id | No | Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content. | |
| idempotency_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / workspace_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations already indicate (destructiveHint, idempotentHint). For a destructive operation, it lacks context about irreversible effects, required permissions, or cascading deletions.
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 short but fails to convey essential information. It is under-specified rather than concise; the single sentence does not earn its place because it provides no more insight than the tool name.
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 tool's destructiveness, parameter complexity (5 properties, nested objects), and lack of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It offers no context on return values, error states, or the operational impact of deletion.
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 tool description adds no explanatory value for parameters. While the input schema partially documents 'query' and 'workspace_id', the description omits crucial details about 'id' (automation identity) and 'idempotency_key', leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.
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 simply repeats the HTTP method and path ('DELETE /inbox/automations/{id}'), which adds no new purpose beyond the tool name. It fails to state what an automation is or what deletion entails, offering only a tautological restatement.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool vs. other delete operations (e.g., aidelly_delete_calendar_events_id) or any prerequisites like needing to fetch the automation first.
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.