Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
starlink-enterprise-mcp

starlink-enterprise-mcp

by WiFiWoW
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_contacts_by_subject_id

Destructive

Delete a contact from your account using its subject ID. Requires admin permissions for API user management.

Instructions

Delete contact — Required permission: Admin Only - API User Management, Edit.Deletes contact based on specified subject Id on the authenticated account. — [DELETE /public/v2/contacts/{subjectId}]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subjectId": "<subjectId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_contacts_by_subject_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subjectIdYesSubject ID of contact to be deleted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of permissions adds context. It also includes the HTTP method and endpoint. No contradiction, but no additional behavioral details beyond what annotations offer.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the action and permission. The endpoint in brackets is helpful but slightly redundant with the rest. No waste, but could be more streamlined.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple deletion tool with one parameter, the description adequately covers the action, permission, and endpoint. Lacks notes about idempotence or error cases, but is complete for basic usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the subjectId parameter. The description only restates that deletion is based on subjectId, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'contact', specifying deletion based on subjectId from the authenticated account. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_service_lines' by targeting contacts.

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?

The description mentions required permission but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other delete tools. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

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