Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
machship-mcp

machship-mcp

by devkindhq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete Company Item

machship_delete_item
Destructive

Permanently deletes a saved company item by its ID, enabling removal of obsolete item records from Machship. This action is irreversible.

Instructions

Deletes a saved item from a company. This action is irreversible.

Args:

  • companyItemId (number): The ID of the item to delete

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyItemIdYesCompany item ID to delete

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorsNoValidation errors returned by Machship, if any
objectNoResponse payload from the Machship API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / companyItemId / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "errors": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Validation errors returned by Machship, if any"
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Response payload from the Machship API"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is structured data. The description adds the useful 'This action is irreversible' framing, but does not say what happens to consignments or records that reference the deleted item, nor what permission scope is needed. Adds some value beyond annotations, but leaves the main side-effect questions open.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with the irreversible warning front-loaded, followed by a compact Args block. The Args line duplicates the schema and could be dropped, but nothing is verbose or buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a single-parameter mutation. However, for a destructive delete, the description does not state referential consequences or whether a soft/hard delete occurs, which is a meaningful gap for agent planning.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Company item ID to delete', so the description's Args block largely restates the schema. No extra meaning (format, where the ID comes from, cross-company scope) is added. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a saved item from a company'), which distinguishes it from the other delete siblings (delete_consignments, delete_custom_schema, delete_identities, delete_pending_consignments) by resource. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource noun is unambiguous enough that an agent can route on it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or prerequisites — for example, whether to confirm the item exists via machship_get_item first, or whether the item must be unreferenced. The only guidance is the irreversibility warning, which is a consequence, not a selection criterion.

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