delete_submissionPermanently delete a specific submission from a Fillout form. This action cannot be undone, so confirm with the user first.
Permanently delete a submission. This cannot be undone, so confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formId | Yes | The form's public ID (from list_forms or the form URL) | |
| submissionId | Yes | The submission ID |
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 known. The description adds genuinely new context: the deletion is permanent, irreversible, and requires user confirmation before invocation — exactly the kind of operational caveat the annotations cannot express.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the destructive action is stated first and the confirmation requirement immediately follows. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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-param destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety flags, the description covers the essential caveat (irreversibility + confirm first). It omits secondary details such as cascade effects on related data or required permissions, which keeps it just short of complete.
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% with only two required params (formId, submissionId), both documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 submission") that clearly distinguishes it from the list/get/create siblings on the same resource and from delete_webhook. It stops short of naming an alternative or scoping behavior, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 gives one procedural rule ("confirm with the user first") which is real guidance, but says nothing about when deletion is appropriate versus other tools, prerequisites, or whether any soft-delete/restore path exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.