job-application-tracker-mcp

Delete application

delete_application

Destructive

Remove a job application by ID from the local tracker, such as a duplicate or mistaken entry. Deletion is permanent.

Instructions

Remove an application from the tracker, for example a duplicate or a mistaken entry. Inputs: id of the application (from add_application or list_applications). The application is deleted from the local file and cannot be brought back, and the ids of the other applications do not change. Example prompt: "Delete application 3, it was a duplicate."

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_application"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The id of the application to delete.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deleted`	Yes	The application that was removed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description still earns credit for disclosing that deletion is permanent and irreversible and, notably, that other applications' ids do not shift. That id-stability detail is non-obvious behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core action and effect, then labels inputs and closes with a short example prompt. Slightly longer than necessary — the example prompt is illustrative rather than essential — but every sentence remains readable and purposeful.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, sourcing of the id, irreversibility, and side effects on other records — everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds marginal value by stating where the id originates (add_application or list_applications), which helps an agent sequence calls correctly. It adds no format or range detail beyond that, so it does not exceed a 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove an application from the tracker') and pins down the scope with concrete examples (duplicate or mistaken entry). An agent can distinguish it from update_application, add_application, and list_applications without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear context for use — removing duplicates or mistaken entries — and points at the sibling tools where the id comes from. It never explicitly states when not to use it (e.g. to correct data, use update_application instead), so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server