Soft-delete a task (hidden but can be restored).
| 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by specifying 'soft-delete' and 'can be restored', which adds important behavioral context not captured by destructiveHint=true or other annotations. It discloses the reversible nature, which is critical for agent understanding.
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 that front-loads the key information. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.
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 soft-delete tool with no output schema and partial parameter descriptions, the description adequately communicates the core operation. However, it lacks context on restoration mechanisms, side effects, or expected response, which would be helpful for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 description does not elaborate on any of the 5 parameters. With only 40% schema description coverage, there is a significant gap in explaining the purpose or usage of fields like 'id', 'brand_id', and 'idempotency_key', especially the required idempotency_key. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of clarity.
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 tool's action ('soft-delete') and resource ('task'). It distinguishes from a hard delete by noting that the task can be restored, providing precise purpose aligned with the tool name.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aidelly_delete_calendar_events_id or when not to use it. The description lacks context for decision-making, such as prerequisites or differentiation from other delete tools.
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 have overlapping purposes, especially in approvals and post updates. For example, aidelly_action_post_approval and aidelly_post_approvals_id_action both handle approval actions, while aidelly_get_approvals and aidelly_list_pending_approvals appear to serve similar listing functions. The proliferation of HTTP-route-style names with generic prefixes (get_approvals_id, patch_posts_id) further obscures distinctions.
The tool set mixes clean verb_noun names (create_post, list_posts) with HTTP-method-plus-path names (get_approvals_id, patch_posts_id, post_analytics_insights). There is no consistent pattern, and 'post' as a verb collides with the content post noun, creating confusion. The inconsistent conventions make it hard to predict tool names.
With 124 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP server scope and the calibration threshold (50+ is extreme). Even for a comprehensive platform API, such a large surface overwhelms agents and makes selection impractical. The count is a severe mismatch for a usable MCP tool set.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering CRUD for posts, drafts, scheduled posts, tasks, reports, webhooks, workspaces, e-commerce stores, and many more. Advanced features like approvals, repurpose jobs, and content automations are also represented. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit delete for regular posts, only cancel), but the domain is well covered overall.
