Delete a Metrica goal by counter and goal ID; use dry-run to preview or apply to confirm the pro write.
Human-friendly: delete a Metrica goal (pro-only, apply=true).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apply | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| goal_id | Yes | ||
| account_id | No | Project profile id (resolves to Direct Client-Login and optional Metrica counter defaults). | |
| counter_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the pro-only requirement and that apply=true is needed to execute, hinting at a dry-run default, but never states that the delete is permanent/irreversible or what happens to a goal's data.
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?
A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the key constraints (pro-only, apply=true) in parenthesis. No wasted words, though it borders on under-specification.
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 destructive delete with no annotations, no output schema, and 80% of parameters undocumented, the description is thin. It omits irreversibility, dry-run semantics, and the meaning of the required identifiers.
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 coverage is only 20% (only account_id is documented). The description clarifies the meaning of apply=true, but counter_id, goal_id, and dry_run remain unexplained in both schema and description, leaving most parameters undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (Metrica goal), and the 'human-friendly' qualifier distinguishes it from a raw API wrapper. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling metrica.goals.delete, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Mentions the pro-only constraint and that apply=true is needed, which are useful preconditions, but says nothing about when to prefer this over metrica.goals.delete or the related create_goal/update_goal siblings. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.