Permanently deletes a marketplace application and its partner-linked entities via the internal backoffice API. Use plan mode first; apply is destructive and disabled by default.
Delete an application and partner-linked entities through the internal backoffice API. Disabled by default and highly destructive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| confirmation | No | ||
| application_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it discloses cascade deletion ('partner-linked entities') and a default-disabled state, which affects invocation and risk assessment. However, it does not describe irreversibility, permissions, or mode behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second front-loads the critical safety warning. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.
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 highly destructive tool with a plan/apply workflow and a confirmation parameter, the description omits essential invocation details. While it correctly signals danger and disabled-by-default status, it leaves the agent unable to determine how to safely execute or dry-run the deletion.
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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters. Critically, it omits the required 'mode' parameter and its plan/apply semantics, and does not explain the 'confirmation' parameter. No parameter meaning is added beyond the bare 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?
States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an application'), with additional scope ('partner-linked entities through the internal backoffice API'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like marketplace_backoffice_delete_offer and marketplace_delete_developer_account.
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?
The description warns that the tool is 'Disabled by default and highly destructive,' which implies caution, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as enabling the tool or using the plan mode first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.