Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SmartBear MCP server

SmartBear MCP server

Official
by SmartBear
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Contract Testing: Delete Integration

contract-testing_delete_integration
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a specific consumer-provider integration by provider and consumer name, removing the link between a consumer and provider in contract testing.

Instructions

Delete a specific consumer-provider integration.

Toolset: Integrations and Network

Parameters:

  • providerName (string) required: Name of the provider

  • consumerName (string) required: Name of the consumer

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
consumerNameYesName of the consumer
providerNameYesName of the provider

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
successYesThe operation completed; the API returns no body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.43.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "success": {
+      "const": true,
+      "description": "The operation completed; the API returns no body.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Addedv0.40.0
  3. Removedv0.34.0
  4. First observedv0.27.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about irreversibility, whether related pact/verification data is affected, or what happens when the named pair has no integration. The only extra content ("Toolset: Integrations and Network") is organizational, not behavioral.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is crisp and front-loaded, but the parameter list duplicates schema fields verbatim and the toolset line is filler. Roughly half the text restates structured data rather than adding information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a full output schema and complete annotations, the description needn't explain returns or safety, so it isn't badly incomplete. Still, for a destructive two-key deletion it omits any caution, idempotency note, or post-deletion effect, leaving the agent to rely entirely on annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters' descriptions are identical to the text in the description, so the parameter section adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the semantic work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Delete a specific consumer-provider integration" gives a concrete verb (delete) and a precise resource (the integration between a named consumer and provider), and the word "specific" implicitly separates it from contract-testing_delete_all_integrations. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or permission note, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (delete_all_integrations, list_integrations, get_integrations_by_team). The agent must guess whether deletion is the right action versus simply listing or inspecting integrations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools