Permanently remove a contact and all associated conversations, messages, and notes. Requires the contacts:delete permission to delete by contact ID.
Delete Contact
Permanently deletes the contact along with their conversations, messages and notes. Requires the contacts:delete permission.
DELETE /api/v1/contacts/{id}
Tags: Contacts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | (path parameter) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility ('permanently'), the cascading destruction of related conversations, messages and notes, and the required `contacts:delete` permission scope, plus the underlying DELETE endpoint. It omits what happens on a missing/foreign id and what the response body contains, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
The destructive scope is front-loaded in the first sentence and there is no fluff, but the leading 'Delete Contact' restates the tool name and the trailing 'Tags: Contacts' is boilerplate that earns no space.
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 an irreversible one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: permanence, cascade effects, and the permission required. Only the return behavior and failure modes are left unstated, which is a modest gap.
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 coverage is 100% for the single `id` path parameter, so the schema already documents it; the description's endpoint line merely reinforces that it is a path parameter. No additional meaning (id format, source of the id) is added beyond structured data.
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 deletes the contact') and immediately scopes the blast radius to the contact's conversations, messages and notes, which implicitly separates it from narrow siblings like delete_contact_note or delete_message.
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 only implied — the description never says when to reach for this versus a narrower delete sibling or an alternative like block_contact, though it does state the prerequisite permission. An agent can infer the destructive-delete context but gets no explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.