Skip to main content
Glama
code-rabi

Mews MCP

by code-rabi

deleteLoyaltyTiers

Remove loyalty tiers from the Mews hospitality platform by specifying their unique identifiers. This tool helps manage customer loyalty programs by deleting outdated or unnecessary tier levels.

Instructions

Deletes loyalty tiers

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
LoyaltyTierIdsYesUnique identifier of the loyalty tiers to be deleted

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that performs the HTTP request to the Mews API endpoint '/api/connector/v1/loyaltyTiers/delete' to delete specified loyalty tiers.
    async execute(config: MewsAuthConfig, args: unknown): Promise<ToolResult> {
      const result = await mewsRequest(config, '/api/connector/v1/loyaltyTiers/delete', args);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • Input schema defining the required 'LoyaltyTierIds' array of strings (up to 1000 items) for the loyalty tiers to delete.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        LoyaltyTierIds: {
          type: 'array',
          items: { type: 'string' },
          description: 'Unique identifier of the loyalty tiers to be deleted',
          maxItems: 1000
        }
      },
      required: ['LoyaltyTierIds'],
      additionalProperties: false
    },
  • Import statement for the deleteLoyaltyTiersTool.
    import { deleteLoyaltyTiersTool } from './loyalty/deleteLoyaltyTiers.js';
  • Inclusion of deleteLoyaltyTiersTool in the exported allTools array for tool registration.
    deleteLoyaltyTiersTool,
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('deletes') but fails to mention critical details such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on associated memberships), or includes confirmation steps. For a destructive tool, this omission is significant and leaves the agent under-informed.

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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Deletes loyalty tiers', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects such as the impact of deletion, error handling, or return values, which are essential for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these behavioral and usage gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'LoyaltyTierIds' well-documented as an array of unique identifiers with a max of 1000 items. The description does not add any parameter details beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high and there is only one parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The score is raised to 4 because the description implicitly confirms the tool's focus on loyalty tiers, aligning with the parameter's purpose, though it does not enhance semantic understanding.

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 tiers' clearly states the verb (deletes) and resource (loyalty tiers), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., bulk deletion) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'deleteLoyaltyPrograms' or 'deleteLoyaltyMemberships', leaving room for confusion about what exactly is being deleted.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple deletion tools (e.g., deleteCompanies, deleteCustomers) and related loyalty tools (e.g., updateLoyaltyTiers, getAllLoyaltyTiers), but no indication of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for deletion, which is critical for a destructive operation.

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