clicknglide-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_signup

Delete a signup by ID and notify affected members by email; without confirm=true, it returns a preview only.

Instructions

Supprime une inscription par son identifiant. send_emails (vrai par défaut) prévient les membres concernés par email. Sans confirm=true : aperçu seulement.

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": {
      "signup_id": "<signup_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_signup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`signup_id`	Yes
`send_emails`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two high-value behaviors: the destructive action is gated behind confirm=true (otherwise preview only), and send_emails defaults to true and notifies affected members. It still omits permission requirements and whether the deletion is reversible.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action, the side effect, and the safety gate, in that order. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical safety and side-effect semantics an agent needs before calling. The absence of return-value or error information is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains two of the three parameters: send_emails (default true, emails members) and confirm (preview unless true). signup_id is left implicit, which is reasonable given the name, but the coverage gap keeps it below 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Supprime une inscription par son identifiant'), so an agent immediately knows this is a deletion keyed by ID. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close siblings 'delete_signup_by_user' or 'delete_all_field_signups', so the top score is not earned.

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?

The description gives clear operational guidance on how to invoke the tool safely: without confirm=true it only produces a preview, so the agent knows to preview before committing. It does not, however, route the agent between this tool and its deletion siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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