delete_contactPermanently remove a contact from an EmailOctopus list after user confirmation; prefer unsubscribing via status update unless deletion is explicitly required.
Permanently delete a contact from a list. Prefer update_contact with status=unsubscribed. Confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listId | Yes | List ID (from list_lists) | |
| contact | Yes | Contact ID or email address |
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, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the irreversibility is partly covered. The description still adds value by stating the deletion is permanent and mandating user confirmation before invoking, which annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing idempotency or behavior when the contact is absent.
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 sentences, no filler, with the action and its permanence front-loaded before the safer alternative and the confirmation requirement. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: permanence, a preferred alternative, and a confirmation gate. It omits only secondary details such as error behavior for unknown contacts or whether repeated calls are harmless.
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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents listId's source (list_lists) and contact's accepted formats (ID or email). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Permanently delete a contact') plus the scope ('from a list'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like update_contact, upsert_contact, and get_contact. The adverb 'permanently' adds a meaningful qualifier rather than restating the name.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool when possible ('Prefer update_contact with status=unsubscribed') and adds a hard precondition ('Confirm with the user first'). Both when-not and the preferred alternative are named, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.