placetel_delete_subscriptionDeletes a Placetel subscription by ID, removing an existing subscription through the DELETE /subscriptions/{id} endpoint.
Delete a subscription. (DELETE /subscriptions/{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 and idempotentHint=true, so the trailing 'Destructive.' merely restates structured data. The description adds nothing new: not whether the deletion is permanent, whether it takes effect immediately, whether the subscription can be recreated with the same target, or what happens on a missing 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, front-loaded with the action; nothing bloated. The parenthetical endpoint is mildly useful for API-literate agents, though 'Destructive.' is a redundant word already covered by annotations.
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 one-required-param delete with no output schema, this covers the mechanics. However, it never explains what a 'subscription' is in this API (webhook/event subscription) or what state the caller is left in after deletion, which matters for a destructive mutation.
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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not clarify what 'id' identifies (webhook subscription vs. another subscription type) or whether response_format affects the delete confirmation, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Specific verb + resource ("Delete a subscription") plus the underlying REST endpoint (DELETE /subscriptions/{id}), which makes it trivially distinguishable from placetel_add_subscription and placetel_list_subscriptions. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so not 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?
No statement of when to use this versus list/add subscription, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the subscription must be paused first), and no warning about irreversibility beyond the single word 'Destructive.' The agent must infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.