Dunefox Voice MCP Server

Delete an agent

delete_agent

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently removes an agent record without affecting calls it already placed; requires the agents scope.

Instructions

Permanent. Does not touch calls it already placed - only the agent record. Needs the "agents" scope.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agentId": "<agentId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agentId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the deletion is 'Permanent' (irreversible), it does not cascade to previously placed calls, and it requires the 'agents' scope. That is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation detail this dimension rewards.

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?

Three short telegraphic sentences, front-loaded with the most critical fact ('Permanent'). Highly efficient, though the fragment style trades some readability for brevity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive single-parameter delete whose safety hints are already in annotations, the description covers the crucial unknowns: irreversibility, non-cascading behavior, and required OAuth scope. No output schema exists, and none is implied to be needed for a delete. Only the agentId origin is missing.

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

Parameters2/5

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

One required parameter (agentId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about the parameter's format, source, or how to obtain a valid ID. The schema carries no help either, so the gap is unfilled.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The name/title establish the verb+resource (delete an agent), and the description narrows the blast radius precisely: 'only the agent record' and 'does not touch calls it already placed.' That scoping distinguishes it from a hypothetical broader cleanup operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like update_agent.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no indication of whether alternatives exist (e.g., disabling or updating an agent) or when deletion is the right choice versus deactivation. The imperative verb implies the action but provides no routing context.

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