Skip to main content
Glama
4tal

MCP Google Contacts Server

by 4tal

delete_contact

Remove a specific contact from Google Contacts by providing its resource name to manage your address book effectively.

Instructions

Delete a contact by resource name.

    Args:
        resource_name: Contact resource name (people/*) to delete
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resource_nameYes

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler function for 'delete_contact' decorated with @mcp.tool(). Initializes the GoogleContactsService and delegates to service.delete_contact().
    @mcp.tool()
    async def delete_contact(resource_name: str) -> str:
        """Delete a contact by resource name.
    
        Args:
            resource_name: Contact resource name (people/*) to delete
        """
        service = init_service()
        if not service:
            return "Error: Google Contacts service is not available. Please check your credentials."
    
        try:
            result = service.delete_contact(resource_name)
            if result.get("success"):
                return f"Contact {resource_name} deleted successfully."
            else:
                return f"Failed to delete contact: {result.get('message', 'Unknown error')}"
        except Exception as e:
            return f"Error: Failed to delete contact - {str(e)}"
  • Helper method in GoogleContactsService class that performs the actual Google People API deletion using deleteContact.
    def delete_contact(self, resource_name: str) -> Dict:
        """Delete a contact by resource name."""
        try:
            self.service.people().deleteContact(resourceName=resource_name).execute()
    
            return {"success": True, "resourceName": resource_name}
    
        except HttpError as error:
            raise GoogleContactsError(f"Error deleting contact: {error}")
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to associated data. The description is technically accurate but lacks essential context for safe use.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a properly formatted Args section that adds parameter details without redundancy. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical contextual elements like confirmation requirements, success/error responses, side effects, or integration with sibling tools. The agent lacks enough information to use this tool safely and effectively in complex scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by specifying the expected format ('people/*') and clarifying it's a 'Contact resource name' rather than just a generic identifier. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates by providing the necessary semantic understanding beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('contact by resource name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_contact_group' by specifying the contact resource type. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other destructive operations like 'remove_contacts_from_group' beyond the resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the contact's resource name), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk deletions), or direct alternatives among the many sibling tools like 'remove_contacts_from_group' or 'update_contact' for different scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/4tal/mcp-google-contacts'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server