Deletes a company record from Accelo CRM by its unique ID. Use to remove outdated or duplicate companies.
Delete a company from Accelo.
Args: id: Company ID to delete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It doesn't say the operation is irreversible, whether it requires elevated permissions, whether it soft-deletes or hard-deletes, or what happens to dependent company records. Only the verb 'Delete' hints at destructiveness.
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?
One short sentence followed by a minimal args block; the operation is front-loaded. The 'Args:' scaffolding is boilerplate but not wasteful.
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 destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and no description of side effects or failure modes, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell what deletion implies for related records or how failures surface.
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 0%, but the description does name the single parameter and explain its meaning ('Company ID to delete'), which is more than the bare 'Id' title in the schema. It adds format details or validation nothing beyond that, so it only partially compensates.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('a company'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from sibling deletes (accelo_delete_job, accelo_delete_issue) or mention any alternative such as deactivation, but the purpose itself is clear.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of what happens to related records (contacts, jobs, affiliations) or whether an alternative like deactivation exists. The agent is left to infer everything from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.