Unofficial Dex CRM MCP Server

dex_delete_group

Delete a group from your Dex CRM while preserving all contacts within it. Use this tool to remove group structures without affecting contact records.

Instructions

Permanently delete a group. The contacts in the group are not deleted.

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": {
      "groupId": "<groupId>"
    },
    "name": "dex_delete_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`groupId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a destructive action ('permanently delete') and clarifies side effects (contacts are not deleted), which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or confirmation requirements, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient, with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second clarifies side effects, both earning their place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive deletion with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the main action and side effects but omits parameter explanations, error handling, and return values, making it adequate but with clear gaps for safe agent use.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the 'groupId' parameter at all, failing to add any meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 because the schema coverage is low, but the description does not provide parameter details, resulting in a minimal score.

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 specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('a group'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dex_update_group' or 'dex_create_group' by emphasizing deletion. It also clarifies what happens to related resources ('contacts in the group are not deleted'), which adds precision.

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 usage context by specifying that contacts are not deleted, suggesting this tool is for group removal only. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'dex_remove_contacts_from_group' or provide prerequisites (e.g., group must exist), so it lacks full guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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