podio_delete_itemPermanently deletes a Podio item by ID and returns a deletion confirmation. Use to remove unwanted records; set silent to true to avoid notifications.
Permanently deletes a Podio item. This cannot be undone. Returns confirmation of deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| silent | No | If true, no notifications are generated (default: false) | |
| item_id | Yes | The Podio item ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two traits that matter most for a delete: the operation is permanent and irreversible, and it returns a deletion confirmation. It omits authorization/permission requirements and whether related data (comments, files) is also removed.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive verb and the irreversibility warning, then the return value. No filler and nothing repeated from the name.
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-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers action, irreversibility, and response shape, which is most of what an agent needs. Permission requirements and cascade behavior remain unstated, keeping it below 5.
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%, so both item_id and silent are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning (no ID format, no side effects of silent), so the baseline of 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 deletes a Podio item'), which is enough to separate it from sibling mutations like podio_update_item and from podio_delete_webhook. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly, so a 5 isn't warranted.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., clearing fields via podio_update_item rather than removing the record). The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.