delete_automationDelete an automation and cancel every future scheduled post; already published posts remain live. This action cannot be undone.
Delete an automation and cancel everything it still has scheduled. Posts it already published stay up. No undo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaceId | No | Workspace to act in. Defaults to the active one. | |
| automationId | Yes | Automation id from list_automations. |
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 and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is established structurally. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: scheduled items are cancelled, published posts remain, and the action is irreversible ('No undo'). It doesn't cover auth or side effects on workspace, but it goes well past the annotation baseline.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The action is stated first, the persistence scope second, and the irreversibility last as a caution — well ordered and appropriately sized.
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?
No output schema exists, but for a delete operation the meaningful return is success/failure, which the description doesn't address. It does cover the key behavioral concerns (cascade cancellation, irreversible). The only real gap is what the caller receives.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema itself, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as whether workspaceId scoping affects the automation lookup, so it does not exceed the schema's contribution.
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?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (automation) immediately, distinguishing it from siblings like cancel_posts or delete_video_job. The scope of what deleting entails is made concrete rather than abstract.
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?
The description implies this is a destructive action with no undo, which guides the agent toward caution, but it never names alternatives or says when to delete vs. cancel/pause. In a sibling set full of cancel_posts and update_automation, no routing guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.