Retrieve deletion requests for event spaces, hotels, and venues. Filter by status, place ID, and paginate results to review and manage approvals.
Get a list of place deletion requests. API token required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of requests to return | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| status | No | Filter by request status | |
| place_id | No | Filter by place ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that an API token is required, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the default response shape or pagination behavior is, or whether only certain statuses are returned by default.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the authentication requirement is stated as a separate, concise sentence.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not clarify what fields are returned, how pagination defaults behave, or whether status filters are exclusive, leaving some operational context missing.
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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('place deletion requests'), and the name inherently distinguishes this listing tool from the sibling approve_deletion_request and reject_deletion_request actions. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using it to review pending requests before approving or rejecting them. 'API token required' is an authentication note, not a usage condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.