Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

people.contactGroups.delete

Permanently deletes a contact group owned by the authenticated user by resource name, optionally removing its contacts too; irreversible unless an undo flow exists.

Instructions

Delete an existing contact group owned by the authenticated user by specifying a contact group resource name. Mutate requests for the same user should be sent sequentially to avoid increased latency and failures [HTTP DELETE] — removes the resource; irreversible unless the API documents a trash/undo flow; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the post-delete resource state (or empty) as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file Siblings over the same resource: batchGet, create, get, list, update.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.
resourceNameYes[URL path segment] Required. The resource name of the contact group to delete.
deleteContactsNo[query parameter] Optional. Set to true to also delete the contacts in the specified group.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / deleteContacts / description
      Previous value: -"Optional. Set to true to also delete the contacts in the specified group."New value: +"[query parameter] Optional. Set to true to also delete the contacts in the specified group."
    • changedInput schema / properties / resourceName / description
      Previous value: -"Required. The resource name of the contact group to delete."New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The resource name of the contact group to delete."
    • addedInput schema / properties / resourceName / pattern
      Added value: +"^contactGroups/[^/]+$"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavior: it is irreversible (no trash/undo flow), it is refused under --readonly safety profiles, and it returns the post-delete resource state. These cover the destructive nature and safety interaction well; only explicit auth-scope requirements are absent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the description is dense with generic template filler ('[HTTP DELETE]', the typed-flags-win-over-params boilerplate, the hedged 'unless the API documents a trash/undo flow'). Several phrases do not earn their place and reduce crispness.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still notes it returns the post-delete resource state. For a destructive mutation with no annotations and complete param coverage, the description is sufficiently complete; a bit more on sequencing scope or permissions would round it out.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including resourceName and deleteContacts. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond echoing the resource name and the generic typed-flags-vs-params/body_file mechanics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an existing contact group owned by the authenticated user by specifying a contact group resource name') and explicitly names the siblings over the same resource (batchGet, create, get, list, update). An agent can distinguish this from update/list/get without opening any schema.

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?

Provides a concrete usage constraint ('Mutate requests for the same user should be sent sequentially to avoid increased latency and failures') and routes to the sibling set, implying update for modification. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this (e.g., use update to remove contacts while keeping the group), so it stops short of full 5-level coverage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools