delete-outbox-faxDelete a queued outbox fax record. This is destructive and requires explicit confirmation.
Side effects: deletes outbox fax record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No | Fax.Plus user ID. Default: self. | |
| outbox_fax_id | Yes | Outbox fax ID to delete. | |
| confirmation_text | Yes | Must be exactly DELETE_OUTBOX_FAX. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | Yes | ||
| user_id | Yes | ||
| outbox_fax_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds the explicit confirmation requirement and a side-effects note, but the side effects line is redundant with the first sentence. No other behaviors (auth, rate limits, irreversibility) are disclosed, though annotations cover the destructive nature.
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 two short sentences plus a side-effect line, keeping it concise. However, the side-effect line ('deletes outbox fax record') repeats the action stated in the first sentence, adding minor redundancy. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 simple destructive delete with confirmation, the description, schema, and annotations are mostly adequate. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., fax must be queued) or error scenarios, but given the output schema exists and the operation is straightforward, it is minimally sufficient. The confirmation requirement is highlighted, which is essential.
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?
Schema descriptions cover all three parameters at 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or elaboration about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 'Delete a queued outbox fax record' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'outbox fax' vs. general 'fax' deletion tools, and the singular 'a' implies single-item operation versus bulk variants.
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 bulk-delete-outbox-faxes or delete-fax. The description only mentions confirmation requirements, not selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.