Delete a contact list while keeping its contacts intact. Clean up your audience structure without losing individual contact data.
Delete a contact list. The list is removed; the contacts themselves are kept. Requires a management session token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter `id`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already communicate that the tool is destructive but not read-only. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: the list is removed while contacts are preserved, and a management session token is required. It is transparent about scope and authentication requirements, though it does not disclose response or error behavior.
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?
The description is three short sentences, with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either the operation, the crucial non-destructive side effect (contacts preserved), or the authentication requirement. There is no filler or repetition.
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 tool with one parameter, clear destructive intent from annotations, and no nested structures, the description covers the action, scope, and auth requirement. It does not describe the success or error return shape, and no output schema exists, but this is a minor gap for a simple delete-list operation.
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?
The single required parameter 'id' is covered by the schema, so the schema already supplies all parameter information. The description implicitly indicates that the id refers to the contact list, but it adds no deeper detail about the id's format, source, or lifecycle. Baseline 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('contact list'), and adds a key distinguishing detail: the contacts themselves are kept. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailkite_remove_list_contact, which operates on an individual contact rather than a whole list.
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 is given about when to use this tool rather than alternatives, nor are exclusions or prerequisites stated beyond a management session token requirement. There is no mention of scenarios where deleting a list would be inappropriate or where mailkite_remove_list_contact or mailkite_delete_broadcast would be a better option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.