delete-contactDelete a contact and all associated subscriber records; confirm with the user first and warn that subscriber records will also be removed.
Delete a contact and all associated subscriber records. Before using this tool, you MUST double-check with the user. Warn that this also deletes all subscriber records for this contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The contact ID (con_xxx) or email address. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key hazard: this is a cascading destructive operation that also removes subscriber records. It omits irreversibility/recoverability and behavior when the ID does not match a contact, which keeps it short of a 5 for an unannotated mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the destructive scope is stated first and the confirmation requirement is front-loaded before the call.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone, and it covers what gets destroyed and the interaction requirement. It leaves out whether the deletion is reversible and what error looks like for a bad ID, which an agent invoking a destructive call would want.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter already documents both accepted forms (con_xxx or email). The description adds nothing about identifier handling, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a contact") plus the significant scope detail that all associated subscriber records go with it. The resource name makes it trivially distinguishable from the delete-domain, delete-audience, and delete-template siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a mandatory pre-use protocol ("you MUST double-check with the user"), which is useful procedural guidance, but says nothing about when to delete versus when to correct the record via update-contact, nor any condition under which deletion should be avoided. Usage is implied by the verb rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.