hail

Official

by hail-hq

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Delete an agent

delete_agent

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a saved agent. DESTRUCTIVE. Ask the user before calling this.

Instructions

Delete a saved agent. DESTRUCTIVE. Ask the user before calling this.

    Numbers that used the agent stop answering with it: calls ring out
    and texts reach webhooks only. Reroute them first with
    ``route_number`` if that matters.

    ``confirm_name`` must equal the agent's ``name``. The tool reads the
    agent first and refuses with ``{"error": ...}`` on a mismatch,
    without deleting anything. To stop an agent without deleting it, use
    ``update_agent`` with ``status="paused"``.

    Returns ``{"deleted": true, "agent_id", "name"}``, or
    ``{"error": "<message>"}``.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_id`	Yes
`confirm_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.29.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out the downstream consequence (numbers stop answering, calls ring out, texts reach webhooks only), the confirm_name guard that makes the tool refuse instead of deleting, and the exact return shapes.

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?

Front-loads the destructive warning, then consequences, then the parameter contract, then the return value. Dense but every sentence carries an operational fact.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers safety, side effects, guard behavior, alternative tools, and return values; even though an output schema exists, restating the two result shapes costs little and removes ambiguity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate: it fully explains confirm_name's contract (must equal the agent's name, mismatch returns an error without deleting). agent_id is left implicit as the target agent identifier.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a saved agent') and immediately marks it destructive, which distinguishes it from the nearby 'update_agent' and 'list_agents'/'get_agent' siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to ask the user before calling, names 'route_number' as the prerequisite when number routing matters, and names 'update_agent' with status="paused" as the non-destructive alternative. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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