placetel_delete_callPermanently deletes a specified Placetel call by ID via the API, enabling removal of unwanted call records when cleanup or correction is needed.
Delete a call. (DELETE /calls/{id}) Destructive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter id. | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so "Destructive" merely echoes structured data and adds no value. The description does not say what is actually removed (call record, recording, CDR), whether the action is reversible, or what an error looks like for a bad id.
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 fragments with the action front-loaded and no wasted prose. The parenthetical endpoint and trailing fragment are slightly telegraphic rather than well-structured sentences, but nothing is padded.
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 whose schema and annotations are complete, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It is still missing the practical context an agent needs for a destructive call-log operation: what is permanently lost and whether the id must be resolved first.
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 the id path parameter and the response_format enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the id (e.g. that it comes from placetel_list_calls), so the baseline 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 ("Delete a call") plus the underlying endpoint DELETE /calls/{id}, which cleanly separates it from placetel_get_call and placetel_list_calls. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, 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 guidance on when to delete a call versus retrieving or archiving it, no prerequisites (permissions, ownership), and no mention of consequences such as losing associated recordings or call detail records. The only hint, "Destructive", is a one-word warning rather than usable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.