Ozon MCP

delete_selection

Delete a saved product selection from your Ozon account. Products in it remain safe. This action is irreversible, so confirm first.

Instructions

[GATED by writes_enabled] Delete a «Подборка». The products in it are not deleted. Ozon's own warning: «Восстановить её не получится» — so confirm with the user first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "delete_selection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uuid`	Yes	The selection to delete, from list_selections()[].uuid.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`detail`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds. It discloses that the operation deletes the selection, does not delete its products, is irreversible per Ozon, and requires user confirmation — strong transparency for a destructive operation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the gating note, the action, the side effect, the irreversibility warning, and the confirmation requirement. It is front-loaded and compact without filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, side effects, irreversibility, and confirmation step. The only real gap is the absence of explicit routing against sibling deletion tools, but the rest of the context is sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already covers the single uuid parameter 100% by explaining it comes from list_selections()[].uuid, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed here.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with 'Delete a «Подборка»' — a specific verb and resource — and immediately clarifies the scope: the products inside are not deleted. This distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools like delete_list and makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It provides useful context by noting the operation is gated by writes_enabled and that the user must confirm first because deletion is irreversible. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with siblings such as delete_list or set_selection_items, so an agent must infer when this is the correct choice among alternatives.

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