ct_delete_groupGenerate a preview plan to delete a ChurchTools group and all its memberships for approval, because deletion cannot be undone.
Writes nothing: returns a plan to delete a group and with it every membership; the preview shows the whole group, as a delete cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groupId | Yes | The group's id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description opens with 'Writes nothing', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, i.e. the tool does have side effects / is not a pure read. This is a direct conflict between the narrative and the structured safety metadata. The irreversibility warning ('a delete cannot be undone') and the scope (group plus every membership) are useful, but per the rubric an annotation contradiction caps this dimension.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact ('Writes nothing'), then the effect and the irreversibility. The clause 'to delete a group and with it every membership' is slightly tangled but every element earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does cover the important facts: no writes on this call, full scope including memberships, and non-reversibility. It omits the essential next step in the workflow (the plan must later be executed), any plan lifetime/validity, and permission requirements, which an agent needs to act correctly.
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?
One parameter (groupId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further parameter detail such as format constraints, id origin, or how to find a group id.
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 outcome: it returns a plan (preview) to delete a group together with all its memberships, which an agent can distinguish from the direct-mutation entry in its title. It is clear about what the call produces (a plan, not a deletion). Sibling differentiation is only implicit, however — nothing names ct_execute_plan or the alternative direct-removal route.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: a reader infers this is the preview step of a plan-then-execute workflow because it 'writes nothing'. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. executing the plan afterwards, or removing a single member) is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.