Transistor-MCP

delete_subscriber

Delete a subscriber from Transistor by subscriber ID or show ID and email. Removes the subscriber from your podcast audience.

Instructions

Delete a subscriber by ID or by show_id + email. Provide either subscriber_id alone, or both show_id and email.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "delete_subscriber"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	Email of the subscriber to delete (use with show_id instead of subscriber_id)
`show_id`	No	ID of the show (use with email instead of subscriber_id)
`subscriber_id`	No	ID of the subscriber to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

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. It confirms the destructive nature ('Delete') but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or error handling. The description adds little beyond the obvious mutation.

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?

Two short, direct sentences with no extraneous text. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a deletion tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on success/failure feedback, idempotency, or what happens if the identifier does not exist. It covers the core usage but not all potential edge cases.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the two alternative parameter combinations (subscriber_id alone vs. show_id+email), which aids in correct usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and clearly names the resource 'a subscriber', with explicit identification methods (by ID or by show_id+email). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_subscriber or update_subscriber.

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 states the two ways to identify the subscriber to delete, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the guidance on parameter combinations is sufficient.

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