SyncroMSP MCP Server

tickets_delete_attachment

Delete an attachment from a support ticket after user confirmation. Removes the specified attachment permanently.

Instructions

Delete an attachment from a ticket. 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>",
      "attachment_id": "<attachment_id>",
      "confirmed": "<confirmed>"
    },
    "name": "tickets_delete_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Ticket ID
`confirmed`	Yes	Must be true to confirm deletion
`attachment_id`	Yes	Attachment ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the deletion action and confirmation requirement, but does not mention permanence, side effects, or required permissions. For a destructive operation, more context (e.g., 'This action cannot be undone') is expected.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second emphasizes the critical validation. No redundant words, and it is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (3 required params, no output schema). The description covers the action and a key constraint (confirmation). However, it lacks information about return values or error states, which would be expected for a deletion tool with no output schema.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further detail about the parameters beyond restating the confirmation requirement. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a score of 3 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 the action ('Delete an attachment from a ticket') and the resource (attachment on a ticket). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'tickets_delete' (deletes entire ticket) and 'tickets_attach_file' (attaches file).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description includes a requirement ('The user MUST confirm') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., using 'tickets_delete' to delete the entire ticket or 'tickets_attach_file' to manage attachments. The implied usage is clear from the name, but no direct comparison or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server