Delete any All Quiet resource via the API using a path and optional query parameters. Irreversible, so double-check before executing.
DELETE through any All Quiet API operation. Irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path template exactly as listed, e.g. /team/{id} | |
| query | No | Query parameters. Lists repeat the key (Statuses=a&Statuses=b) | |
| path_params | No | Values for {placeholders} in the path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's main addition is 'Irreversible,' which adds meaningful risk context beyond the generic destructive hint. It does not discuss auth, errors, or response behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden. The description is consistent with the destructive annotation.
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 deliver the operation type and the critical safety warning with no filler. Front-loading 'DELETE' and 'Irreversible' makes the risk immediately visible. This is concise without sacrificing necessary information.
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 three-parameter generic wrapper with no output schema and an openWorldHint, the description is minimally adequate: it states the operation and warns of irreversibility. It does not mention how to discover valid paths or when to prefer it over specialized sibling operations, though the schema and sibling tools partly cover that gap. More guidance on using this as a low-level fallback would improve completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains path templates, query repetition, and path_params substitution, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The description does not add any extra semantic context about parameters, but none is required at this coverage level.
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 identifies this as a DELETE operation against any All Quiet API endpoint ('DELETE through any All Quiet API operation'), which clearly distinguishes it from call_read and call_write by HTTP method. It is not tied to a specific resource, but that is appropriate for a generic wrapper. The bare title 'call_delete' is amplified by the description's explicit verb and irreversibility warning.
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?
The description conveys that the tool is the generic DELETE path for All Quiet API operations, implying it should be used when a destructive endpoint must be called. It does not explicitly say when to prefer call_delete over the specialized incident operations or describe preconditions such as first resolving the path via list_operations. No exclusions or alternative selection conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.