Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SyncroMSP MCP Server

SyncroMSP MCP Server

by advenimus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

contracts_delete

Delete a contract by providing its ID and confirmation. After deletion, GET requests return null for that contract.

Instructions

DELETE a contract (soft-delete -- GET returns null after deletion, not 404). The user MUST confirm.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "confirmed": "<confirmed>"
    },
    "name": "contracts_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesContract ID
confirmedYesMust be true

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the soft-delete behavior (GET returns null, not 404) which is a critical behavioral trait beyond the basic operation. It also mentions the required user confirmation. With no annotations provided, the description effectively communicates important behaviors.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a brief clarification. It front-loads the core action 'DELETE a contract'. Every word is necessary and adds value, with no filler.

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 delete operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: action, soft-delete behavior, and requirement of confirmation. It does not mention return value or permissions, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools that provide context.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for id and confirmed. The description reiterates the confirmation requirement but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 'DELETE a contract', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like contracts_create or contracts_get by clearly indicating deletion. The soft-delete clarification adds further specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use (to delete a contract) and notes the user MUST confirm, which is a usage prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like contracts_update or contacts_delete. The context from sibling names helps but is not explicit.

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