Skip to main content
Glama
lumile

LumbreTravel MCP Server

by lumile

delete_provider

Remove a travel provider from the LumbreTravel system by specifying its unique identifier to manage your travel program data.

Instructions

Eliminar un proveedor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID del proveedor a eliminar

Implementation Reference

  • Handler logic for the 'delete_provider' MCP tool. Extracts the provider ID from arguments and calls the ApiService.deleteProvider method to perform the deletion, returning the result as JSON.
    case 'delete_provider': {
      const { id } = args as { id: string }
      const provider = await this.apiService.deleteProvider(id)
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(provider, null, 2) }]
      }
    }
  • Tool registration entry in listTools() method, including name, description, and input schema for 'delete_provider'.
    {
      name: 'delete_provider',
      description: 'Eliminar un proveedor.',
      inputSchema: { type: 'object', properties: { id: { type: 'string', description: 'ID del proveedor a eliminar' } }, required: ['id'] }
    },
  • Input schema definition for delete_provider tool: requires a string 'id' parameter.
    description: 'Eliminar un proveedor.',
    inputSchema: { type: 'object', properties: { id: { type: 'string', description: 'ID del proveedor a eliminar' } }, required: ['id'] }
  • Supporting ApiService method that sends a DELETE request to the backend API to delete a provider by ID.
    async deleteProvider (id: string) {
      const headers = await this.getHeaders()
      const response = await fetch(`${API_CONFIG.baseUrl}/integrations/mcp/provider/delete/${id}`, {
        method: 'DELETE',
        headers
      })
      return await this.handleResponse<any>(response)
    }
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. It states the tool deletes a provider but does not clarify critical aspects: whether this is a permanent or soft delete, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated data (e.g., linked services or programs), or if there are confirmation prompts. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Spanish ('Eliminar un proveedor') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loaded with the essential action. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a deletion tool (a destructive operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, side effects), usage context, and expected outcomes. While the schema covers the single parameter, the description does not compensate for the missing safety and operational details, making it inadequate for informed use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'ID del proveedor a eliminar.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it does not mention parameters at all. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter info in the description, which applies here.

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 description 'Eliminar un proveedor' clearly states the action (delete/eliminar) and the resource (provider/proveedor) in Spanish. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_provider' or 'update_provider' by specifying the deletion operation. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'provider' entails in this context, which slightly reduces clarity compared to a more detailed explanation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the provider ID), exclusions (e.g., not for deactivated providers), or sibling tools like 'reactivate_provider' or 'delete_program' that might be relevant in different scenarios. Usage is implied only by the verb 'eliminar,' which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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/lumile/lumbretravel-mcp'

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