lendlord-mcp

Delete property

delete_property

Destructive

Permanently remove a property from a Lendlord portfolio by property ID. Set confirm to true once writes are approved for the session.

Instructions

Permanently delete a property from the portfolio.

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": {
      "propertyId": "<propertyId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_property"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered by structured data. The word 'Permanently' usefully signals irreversibility, which is additive, but the description omits the confirm-approval gating and any cascade/side-effect disclosure that matter for a destructive tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the destructive nature is stated immediately. It is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, irreversible tool with no output schema and half its parameters undocumented, the description should explain the confirm gate and any consequences of deletion. Given the annotations, safety is partly covered, but the operational context an agent needs before invoking this is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (propertyId is undocumented), and the description mentions neither parameter. It does not compensate for the gap by explaining the identifier's format or the confirm-approval workflow.

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 ('delete') and resource ('property') with a scope qualifier ('from the portfolio'), which distinguishes it from delete_document, delete_tenant, and delete_communication by resource. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative (e.g., update_property for modifying rather than removing). An agent gets no routing help beyond the resource name.

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