tracker_queues_versions_deletePermanently delete a Yandex 360 Tracker queue version using its version_id. Use this irreversible operation to remove obsolete versions and receive an acknowledgement.
Permanently delete a queue version (irreversible). Returns an acknowledgement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version_id | Yes | Numeric id of the version, from ``queues_versions_list``. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does 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 adds the useful nuance that deletion is permanent/irreversible and states the return is an acknowledgement, but offers no auth/permission or side-effect detail beyond that.
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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and its key constraint ('irreversible'), with the return note last. No filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what the agent needs: what it does, that it is permanent, and the return shape. Missing only permission/alternative guidance, which is minor here.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema even noting the source ('from queues_versions_list'). The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the 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+resource ('delete a queue version') that an agent can distinguish from siblings like tracker_queues_versions_get/update/create. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g. version update vs delete, or any restore path). The only contextual cue is the irreversibility note, which is a warning rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.