placetel_delete_recordingDelete a Placetel call recording by its ID to remove stored audio when it is no longer needed. Use this destructive action only when permanent removal is intended.
Delete a recording. (DELETE /recordings/{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 and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Destructive' adds nothing new. The only extra detail is the REST path, with no information on permanence, whether the deletion can be undone, or what is actually 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 fragments with the action and warning front-loaded. 'Destructive' duplicates an annotation and the REST path is mechanical, so it is efficient but not maximally earned.
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 single-parameter delete with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is minimally viable. It still leaves out any note about scope (which recording belongs to which call) or irreversibility, which matters for a destructive operation.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, both the integer id and the response_format enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, 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 recording') that cleanly separates it from list_recordings and get_recording. It is clear but offers no explicit differentiation from sibling delete operations like delete_fax or delete_call, so it stops short of a 5.
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 indication of when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisite or permission guidance, and no warning about consequences beyond the one-word 'Destructive'. The agent must infer usage 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.