delete-templatePermanently deletes an email template by ID; confirm with the user first, as removing a published version leaves its alias without a published template.
Delete a template permanently. Before using this tool, you MUST double-check with the user. If it's the published version, no template will be published for that alias until another is published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Template ID (tem_xxx format). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses irreversibility ('permanently') and a non-obvious side effect (the alias loses its published template). It omits response shape and any permission/auth requirements, so it is strong but not complete.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the mandatory confirmation step, and the consequence. The destructive warning is front-loaded.
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?
For a one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical concerns: permanence, human confirmation, and the published-alias side effect. Only return behavior and auth expectations are unaddressed.
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 is fully documented in the schema as 'tem_xxx format'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete a template permanently'), which unambiguously separates it from update-template and publish-template in the sibling list. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the destructive framing is clear.
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?
It states a hard prerequisite ('you MUST double-check with the user') which is genuinely actionable guidance. However it gives no guidance on alternatives, such as unpublishing versus deleting, or when a delete is warranted at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.