gapify-mcp-server

Account AgentBots: Delete an AgentBot

gapify_delete_agent_bot

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete an agent bot from a Gapify account using its account ID and bot ID, permanently removing it from the account's AgentBots list.

Instructions

Delete an agent bot from the account [Account AgentBots] DELETE /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/agent_bots/{id} Auth: User API key (header api-access-token). Destructive: this permanently deletes the resource. Text values may be written in Persian (Farsi) or any other language and are sent unchanged; IDs, numbers and phone numbers may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "gapify_delete_agent_bot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The ID of the agentbot to be updated
`account_id`	Yes	The numeric ID of the account

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds real value beyond them: the auth requirement (User API key in the api-access-token header) and the explicit confirmation that the deletion is permanent. It stops short of describing side effects on conversations or inboxes referencing the bot.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the endpoint and auth in tight sentences with no wasted prose. The Persian/Arabic-Indic digit note is boilerplate but is short and operationally relevant, so it earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter destructive DELETE with full-100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the action, endpoint, auth header and permanence warning — everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only cascading-effect details are absent, which is a minor omission given the annotation coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely useful encoding guidance — IDs and numbers may be supplied with Persian or Arabic-Indic digits — which directly affects how account_id and id should be formatted. This is meaning the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an agent bot from the account') plus the exact endpoint, so the action and scope are unambiguous. However, with near-identical siblings like gapify_platform_delete_agent_bot and gapify_remove_agent in the list, the description never explains what distinguishes this account-level bot deletion from those alternatives.

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 only guidance is the 'Destructive' warning; there is no statement of when to use this tool versus gapify_platform_delete_agent_bot or gapify_remove_agent, nor any prerequisite or caution about irreversibility beyond the single word. An agent gets no routing logic from the text.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server