Delete an email sequence and cancel all active contacts in it. Returns the number of canceled contacts.
Delete a sequence and retire every contact still walking it. The response reports how many were canceled. Requires an API key (mk_live_…).
| 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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: the cascade effect on contacts ('retire every contact still walking it') and the response behavior ('reports how many were canceled'). It also discloses the API key requirement (mk_live_…). This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The most important behavioral fact (cascade deletion) is front-loaded, followed by response info and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is nearly complete. It covers the cascade effect, response content, and auth requirement. It doesn't describe error cases or whether deletion is reversible, but those are minor given the annotations and simple parameter set.
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% and the only parameter is 'id' with description 'Path parameter id.' The description doesn't add parameter-level detail, but with a single self-explanatory parameter and full schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'a sequence' implicitly maps to the id parameter.
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'), a specific resource ('a sequence'), and a distinctive behavioral consequence ('retire every contact still walking it'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like mailkite_stop_sequence or mailkite_cancel_enrollment by describing the cascade effect.
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?
The description implies when to use it: when you want to delete a sequence and retire its active contacts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the cascade behavior ('retire every contact still walking it') gives clear context that this is the full-deletion tool rather than a stop or pause. A small gap: it doesn't explicitly say 'use stop_sequence if you only want to pause'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.