lendlord-mcp

Delete communication

delete_communication

Destructive

Permanently deletes a maintenance report or conversation; set archived:true via update_communication to keep history.

Instructions

Permanently delete a maintenance report/conversation (use update_communication archived:true to keep history).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "communicationId": "<communicationId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_communication"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Set true once the user has approved writes for this session
`communicationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by emphasizing 'Permanently' (irreversibility) and offering the non-destructive archiving path, though it doesn't discuss auth or recovery.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the destructive action and immediately followed by the safer alternative in a parenthetical. Zero waste.

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?

For a destructive single-entity delete with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description conveys irreversibility and the alternative path. It omits the confirm-gate context, which the schema partially carries, so it's near-complete rather than exhaustive.

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 coverage is 50%: confirm is documented in the schema, communicationId is not. The description's 'maintenance report/conversation' wording clarifies what the id refers to, partially compensating, but adds no format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (delete) + resource (maintenance report/conversation), with 'Permanently' clarifying the operation's nature. It also names the sibling alternative update_communication, so the agent can distinguish it from other communication tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to update_communication with archived:true when history should be kept, which is a genuine when-to-use alternative. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g. that confirm must be true) or exclusions, so it's clear context rather than a full decision rule.

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