contract-testing_delete_all_integrationsDelete every consumer-provider integration in the workspace to clear contract testing connections and reset the setup.
Delete ALL consumer-provider integrations in the workspace.
Toolset: Integrations and Network
Parameters: None
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.40.0v0.34.0v0.27.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds the workspace-wide 'ALL' scope but does not mention irreversibility, potential impact on dependent data, or any confirmation safeguards, which would strengthen it further.
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 core behavior is front-loaded in a single clear sentence. The 'Toolset' and 'Parameters: None' lines are somewhat redundant but short, and the overall description is appropriately minimal for a 0-parameter tool.
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 simple, 0-parameter destructive operation, the description plus annotations cover the essential facts: it deletes all consumer-provider integrations in the workspace, and it is destructive. A note about irreversibility would be nice, but nothing critical is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully defines the call surface. The description explicitly notes 'Parameters: None,' which adds a small but useful confirmation for the agent.
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 names a specific verb ('Delete'), a precise resource ('ALL consumer-provider integrations'), and the scope ('in the workspace'). It clearly differentiates this from the sibling contract-testing_delete_integration, which targets a single integration.
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 guidance is given about when to choose this bulk-delete tool versus alternatives like delete_integration or list_integrations. The word 'ALL' implies a bulk operation, but the description never states conditions, warnings, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.