tracker_components_deletePermanently delete a Yandex 360 Tracker component by numeric component_id; this irreversible action returns an acknowledgement.
Permanently delete a component (irreversible). Returns an acknowledgement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component_id | Yes | Numeric id of the component, from ``components_list``. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description reinforces irreversibility (redundant with destructiveHint) and adds one genuinely new fact — that the call returns an acknowledgement — but omits permission requirements and any side effects on issues referencing the component.
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 short sentences with zero waste, and the destructive nature is front-loaded in the first clause before the return-value note.
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?
Adequate for a one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations carry the safety semantics, but it stops short of telling the agent what is required to call it successfully (authorization) or what happens to dependent data such as issues assigned to the component.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already names the source of the id (``components_list``). The tool description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ("Permanently delete a component") with a clear scope qualifier ("irreversible"). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other delete siblings (tracker_components_update, tracker_queues_delete, etc.), but the name-plus-verb pairing leaves little ambiguity.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternative named (e.g., components_list for discovering the id first), and no prerequisites such as required permissions. The agent must infer all of this from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.