filter_deleteRemoves a saved conversation filter from an organization using the filter ID.
Delete a saved conversation filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filterId | Yes | The filter id (see filter_list). | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action—it doesn't explain permanence, required permissions, or side effects.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and resource immediately, which is optimal for a simple delete tool.
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 delete operation with complete annotations, a full schema, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention irreversibility or required permissions, but the destructive annotation and schema already cover the critical call details.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (filterId and organizationId) fully documented and cross-referenced to helper tools. The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable given the schema covers everything, so baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a saved conversation filter'), making the tool's action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like filter_list or filter_update, but the verb and resource combination 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools. The schema gives hints (e.g., 'see filter_list') but the description itself provides no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.