store_items_deletePermanently deletes a StreamElements store item by its 24-character item ID, removing it from the channel's store inventory.
Permanently delete a store item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | Item id (24-character hex id) | |
| channel | No | StreamElements channel id (24-char hex). Defaults to SE_CHANNEL_ID or the channel that owns the token. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 largely covered. The word 'Permanently' usefully reinforces irreversibility, but the description says nothing about the effect on existing redemptions, required permissions, or whether deletion can be undone.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too thin for a destructive operation with an optional channel scope.
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?
No output schema exists, but a delete tool returns little; the main gaps are confirmation of scope (channel-wide vs single item) and side effects on redemptions. Annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile, so the definition is minimally complete rather than thorough.
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%, so itemId format and the channel defaulting rule are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable but not value-adding.
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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (store item), and 'Permanently' adds an irreversibility qualifier. It is distinguishable from store_items_update/get/list by name and wording, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus store_items_update, store_redemptions_delete, or soft alternatives. No prerequisites (e.g., does the item need to be inactive first?) are mentioned; the agent must infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.