Skip to main content
Glama
code-rabi

Mews MCP

by code-rabi

deleteLoyaltyPrograms

Remove loyalty programs from the Mews hospitality platform by specifying their unique identifiers. This tool helps manage customer loyalty offerings by deleting outdated or inactive programs.

Instructions

Deletes loyalty programs

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
LoyaltyProgramIdsYesUnique identifier of the loyalty programs to be deleted

Implementation Reference

  • The execute function that handles the tool logic by making an HTTP request to the Mews API endpoint '/api/connector/v1/loyaltyPrograms/delete' and returning the result as JSON.
    async execute(config: MewsAuthConfig, args: unknown): Promise<ToolResult> {
      const result = await mewsRequest(config, '/api/connector/v1/loyaltyPrograms/delete', args);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • Input schema defining the required 'LoyaltyProgramIds' as an array of strings (up to 1000 items).
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        LoyaltyProgramIds: {
          type: 'array',
          items: { type: 'string' },
          description: 'Unique identifier of the loyalty programs to be deleted',
          maxItems: 1000
        }
      },
      required: ['LoyaltyProgramIds'],
      additionalProperties: false
    },
  • Registers deleteLoyaltyProgramsTool in the allTools array alongside other loyalty tools.
    updateLoyaltyProgramsTool,
    deleteLoyaltyProgramsTool,
  • Imports the deleteLoyaltyProgramsTool for registration.
    import { deleteLoyaltyProgramsTool } from './loyalty/deleteLoyaltyPrograms.js';
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, effects on related data (e.g., loyalty memberships), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like success/error responses, side effects, or safety warnings, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'LoyaltyProgramIds' documented as an array of unique identifiers with a max of 1000 items. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or deletion behavior specifics, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Deletes loyalty programs' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (loyalty programs), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about scope or constraints and doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like deleteCompanies or deleteLoyaltyTiers, making it vague in context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools (e.g., updateLoyaltyPrograms for modifications), leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/code-rabi/mews-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server