grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

people.people.deleteContact

Deletes a specified contact person while preserving non-contact data, enabling permanent removal of unwanted contacts. Review irreversibility before use.

Instructions

Delete a contact person. Any non-contact data will not be deleted. 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: batchCreateContacts, batchDeleteContacts, batchUpdateContacts, createContact, deleteContactPhoto, get, getBatchGet, listDirectoryPeople, searchContacts, searchDirectoryPeople, updateContact, updateContactPhoto.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.
`resourceName`	Yes	[URL path segment] Required. The resource name of the contact to delete.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / resourceName / description

Previous value: -"Required. The resource name of the contact to delete."New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The resource name of the contact to delete."

addedInput schema / properties / resourceName / pattern
```
Added value: +"^people/[^/]+$"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 does substantial work: it discloses irreversibility, the readonly-profile refusal, the sequential-mutation latency caveat, and the post-delete return state. The irreversibility statement is hedged with template language ("unless the API documents a trash/undo flow"), which softens what should be a firm warning, keeping it below a 5.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The actual purpose is front-loaded, but roughly half the text is generic machine boilerplate — HTTP-method glosses, body_file/params plumbing explanations that are irrelevant to a DELETE with no body, and a 13-item sibling dump. Much of it does not earn its place for this specific operation.

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?

An output schema exists and all five parameters are documented, so the remaining burden was behavioral: irreversibility, safety profile, sequencing, and scope of deletion are all covered. The only meaningful gap is the missing routing against the batch and photo variants, which is a usage concern rather than a completeness hole.

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 resourceName, query, params, dry_run, and body_file — baseline 3. The description only restates the generic request-building mechanics (typed params win over params map, or body_file) and adds no contact-delete-specific meaning.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The opening sentence pairs a specific verb and resource ("Delete a contact person") and adds scope clarification ("Any non-contact data will not be deleted"). The sibling list at the end names alternatives but never differentiates this tool from deleteContactPhoto or batchDeleteContacts, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is operational guidance ("Mutate requests for the same user should be sent sequentially") and a safety-profile note ("refused under --readonly"), which help an agent call it correctly. But nothing states when to pick this over batchDeleteContacts or deleteContactPhoto — usage is only implied by the name.

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

Deploy Server