delete_need【需要登录】硬删除自己的需求（连同全部接洽记录，不可恢复）。日常收尾优先用 cancel_need（保留记录）或 unpublish_need（可逆下架），删除只用于确实要抹掉时——调用前先向用户确认。
【失败语义】非本人 403 not_your_need。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| needId | Yes | 需求 id |
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?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the operation is irreversible, cascades to all contact records, requires login, and returns 403 not_your_need for non-owners. It also explicitly frames the tool as a hard delete rather than a reversible action, adding meaningful behavioral context not present in the annotations.
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 compact and well-structured, front-loading the critical hard-delete and irreversibility facts, then providing routing guidance, and ending with failure semantics. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: authentication, irreversibility, cascade behavior, preferred alternatives, user confirmation, and error semantics. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke this tool is missing.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single needId parameter, so the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds ownership context ('自己的需求') but does not need to explain the parameter format further; baseline 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: '硬删除自己的需求' (hard delete one's own need), with explicit scope ('自己的需求') and consequences ('连同全部接洽记录，不可恢复'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings cancel_need and unpublish_need, so an agent can reliably tell them apart.
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 says when to use this tool versus alternatives: '日常收尾优先用 cancel_need（保留记录）或 unpublish_need（可逆下架）', and reserves delete for cases where the data should truly be erased. It also instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling, which is clear operational guidance.
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.
Each tool has a clearly documented purpose, often with explicit 'when to use' guidance and cross-references, making the vast majority easy to tell apart. A few clusters (get_my_brief, get_my_positioning, get_my_work, get_my_dispatch) and data-overlapping get_my_card vs get_my_profile require careful reading, but descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.
The overwhelming majority follow snake_case verb_noun conventions (create_product, update_need, list_my_signups). Minor deviations include noun-only feed names (personalized_feed, random_feed), inconsistency between 'prefs' and 'preferences' in notification tools, and a mix of update_* and set_* for mutations, but the pattern remains predictable overall.
137 tools is an extreme mismatch for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. Even with a broad multi-domain platform, this volume makes tool selection and navigation impractical and heavily burdens the agent's context window.
The surface covers full lifecycles for needs, products, activities/signups, conversations, collaboration goals/tasks, dispatch, profile/onboarding, and supporting resources like companies, parks, policies, and ratings. Deliberate omissions (no user-post creation, no organizer profile editing via agent) are explicitly documented, so core workflows have no obvious dead ends.