Skip to main content
Glama
lumile

LumbreTravel MCP Server

by lumile

delete_service

Remove a travel service from the LumbreTravel system by providing its unique identifier to manage program offerings.

Instructions

Eliminar un servicio

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID del servicio a eliminar

Implementation Reference

  • The handler logic for the 'delete_service' tool. It extracts the service ID from the input arguments and delegates the deletion to the ApiService.deleteService method, returning the result as a JSON-formatted text response.
    case 'delete_service': {
      const { id } = args as { id: string }
      const service = await this.apiService.deleteService(id)
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(service, null, 2) }]
      }
    }
  • Registration of the 'delete_service' tool in the listTools method, including its name, description, and input schema definition.
    {
      name: 'delete_service',
      description: 'Eliminar un servicio',
      inputSchema: { type: 'object', properties: { id: { type: 'string', description: 'ID del servicio a eliminar' } }, required: ['id'] }
    },
  • The ApiService method that implements the core logic by making a DELETE HTTP request to the backend API endpoint to delete the service by its ID.
    async deleteService (id: string) {
      const headers = await this.getHeaders()
      const response = await fetch(`${API_CONFIG.baseUrl}/integrations/mcp/service/delete/${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. 'Eliminar' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or includes confirmation steps. For a destructive tool 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient phrase ('Eliminar un servicio') that directly states the action. It's front-loaded with the verb and avoids unnecessary words. However, it's overly terse for a destructive operation—adding a bit more context (e.g., 'permanently') could improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances (e.g., irreversible deletion). For a mutation tool with high stakes, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective 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 servicio a eliminar'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Eliminar un servicio' (Delete a service) states a clear verb ('eliminar') and resource ('servicio'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_activities' or 'delete_program'—it only specifies the resource type without clarifying what distinguishes a 'service' from other deletable entities in this context.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing service ID), exclusions, or comparisons to other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_service_language'). Without such context, an agent might misuse it or overlook related operations.

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