Remove an organization from a specific campaign by providing the campaign ID and organization ID. Permanently deletes the organization from your Kanka worldbuilding data.
Delete an existing organization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies destructive action, but it does not disclose irreversibility, cascading effects, permissions required, or consequences for related 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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified: conciseness comes at the expense of essential context about parameters and behavior.
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?
The tool is simple, with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description is too sparse to be complete. The role of campaignId is completely unexplained, and no behavioral or safety context is provided, making this insufficient for confident invocation.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the two required parameters, id and campaignId. The agent is left without any understanding of what these parameters represent or how they relate, which is a critical gap.
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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('an existing organization'), making the core purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools, but the resource name itself provides sufficient distinction.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_organization or get_organization. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.