Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_delete_contact

Remove a contact from the Pylon customer support platform by specifying its unique ID to manage your contact database.

Instructions

Delete a contact

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe contact ID to delete

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:245-257 (registration)
    Registration of the 'pylon_delete_contact' MCP tool. Includes input schema (id: string), description, and inline handler function that invokes PylonClient.deleteContact(id) and formats the response as text.
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_delete_contact',
    	'Delete a contact',
    	{
    		id: z.string().describe('The contact ID to delete'),
    	},
    	async ({ id }) => {
    		const result = await client.deleteContact(id);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • Zod input schema for pylon_delete_contact tool requiring a contact 'id'.
    {
    	id: z.string().describe('The contact ID to delete'),
    },
  • Core handler logic in PylonClient: performs DELETE request to /contacts/{id} API endpoint.
    async deleteContact(
    	id: string,
    ): Promise<SingleResponse<{ success: boolean }>> {
    	return this.request<SingleResponse<{ success: boolean }>>(
    		'DELETE',
    		`/contacts/${id}`,
    	);
    }
  • Private request method used by deleteContact to make authenticated HTTP requests to Pylon API.
    private async request<T>(
    	method: string,
    	path: string,
    	body?: object,
    ): Promise<T> {
    	const url = `${PYLON_API_BASE}${path}`;
    	const headers: Record<string, string> = {
    		Authorization: `Bearer ${this.apiToken}`,
    		'Content-Type': 'application/json',
    		Accept: 'application/json',
    	};
    
    	const response = await fetch(url, {
    		method,
    		headers,
    		body: body ? JSON.stringify(body) : undefined,
    	});
    
    	if (!response.ok) {
    		const errorText = await response.text();
    		throw new Error(
    			`Pylon API error: ${response.status} ${response.statusText} - ${errorText}`,
    		);
    	}
    
    	return response.json() as Promise<T>;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a contact' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, confirmation prompts, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words—'Delete a contact' is maximally concise. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what happens post-deletion (e.g., success confirmation, error messages), dependencies on other tools, or safety warnings. For a delete operation, this leaves the agent under-informed about risks and outcomes.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The contact ID to delete'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is strong. It loses a point because it doesn't clarify the format or source of the ID (e.g., from 'pylon_get_contact' or 'pylon_list_contacts').

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Delete a contact' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (contact), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pylon_update_contact' or 'pylon_get_contact' by specifying deletion. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a contact in this context, which prevents a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing contact ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete contacts in use), or sibling tools like 'pylon_update_contact' for modifications instead of deletion. This leaves the agent without context for decision-making.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JustinBeckwith/pylon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server