Skip to main content
Glama
hlebtkachenko

POHODA MCP Server

pohoda_delete_address

Remove an address from the POHODA addressbook using its unique ID. This tool deletes specific address records from the accounting system's contact database.

Instructions

Delete an address from POHODA addressbook by ID. Requires the address ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAddress ID to delete (required)

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the `pohoda_delete_address` tool, which uses `buildImportDoc` to construct the delete XML request and executes it against the Pohoda client.
    server.tool(
      "pohoda_delete_address",
      "Delete an address from POHODA addressbook by ID. Requires the address ID.",
      {
        id: z.number().describe("Address ID to delete (required)"),
      },
      async (params) => {
        try {
          const xml = buildImportDoc({ ico: client.ico }, (item) => {
            const adb = item.ele(NS.adb, "adb:addressbook").att("version", "2.0");
            const actionType = adb.ele(NS.adb, "adb:actionType");
            const del = actionType.ele(NS.adb, "adb:delete");
            const filter = del.ele(NS.ftr, "ftr:filter");
            filter.ele(NS.ftr, "ftr:id").txt(String(params.id));
          });
          const response = await client.sendXml(xml);
          const result = extractImportResult(parseResponse(response));
          return result.success ? ok(`Address deleted successfully. ${result.message}`) : err(result.message);
        } catch (e) {
          return err((e as Error).message);
        }
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies destruction, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether the deletion is permanent/irreversible, what happens to related records (invoices, orders referencing this address), or error conditions (e.g., fails if address doesn't exist).

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?

The description is efficiently structured with two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence ('Requires the address ID.') is slightly redundant given the schema already marks the field as required and the first sentence mentions 'by ID', but overall it is appropriately concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter) and complete schema coverage, the description adequately covers the basic invocation pattern. However, for a destructive operation within an ERP system (evidenced by sibling tools like pohoda_create_invoice), it lacks important safety context about irreversibility or referential integrity constraints, leaving gaps in contextual completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter as 'Address ID to delete (required)'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond stating 'Requires the address ID', which essentially duplicates the schema information. Baseline score appropriate for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action (Delete), resource (address from POHODA addressbook), and identification method (by ID). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like pohoda_create_address, pohoda_update_address, and pohoda_list_addresses through precise verb selection.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through the verb 'Delete' and mentions the ID requirement, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus pohoda_update_address or prerequisites such as verifying the address exists. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hlebtkachenko/pohoda-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server