Delete a specific chat template using its ID and client slug. Only removes templates that were created via the current API integration.
Exclui um modelo de chat. IMPORTANTE: Limitação da API da Kommo: Você só pode excluir modelos criados pela integração atual (ou seja, via API usando este mesmo token).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do modelo | |
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable context about a Kommo API limitation: deletion only works for templates created by the same integration using the same token. This is important behavioral information beyond the basic 'delete' semantics, though it does not cover all potential side effects or error cases.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded: it states the function in the first sentence and then highlights a critical limitation. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant wording.
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 simple two-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical API constraint. It could mention what happens if the template is not owned by the current integration, but the limitation itself already implies that such deletions are not allowed.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions for 'id' and 'client_slug', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional semantic detail about the parameters themselves, but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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?
The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Exclui um modelo de chat' (deletes a chat template). This is specific enough to identify the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like create_template or update_template.
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 implies the tool is used to delete chat templates, and it provides a key usage restriction: only templates created by the current integration/token can be deleted. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any other exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.