monapay_delete_email_configPermanently delete an email notification configuration. Use to remove outdated or unwanted email settings from the system.
Xoá vĩnh viễn một cấu hình email. / Permanently delete an email notification config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config_id | Yes | UUID cấu hình email |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description's 'permanently delete' reinforces irreversibility, which adds modest value, but it says nothing about side effects (e.g., whether verification state or logs are removed).
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 short sentences, action front-loaded, no filler. The bilingual duplication costs a little space but aids clarity for a dual-language tool set.
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 no output schema, the annotations plus a clear statement of permanence cover what an agent needs to call it safely. Only the discovery path to config_id is unaddressed.
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?
Only one parameter (config_id) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting it as a UUID with minLength 8. The description adds no format, lookup, or validation detail beyond the schema, so 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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (email notification config), and 'permanently' makes the operation unambiguous. It does not name the sibling it is distinguished from (update/create email config), but the action itself is clear enough for an agent to select it.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of how to obtain config_id, and no reference to alternatives such as monapay_list_email_configs for discovery or monapay_update_email_config if the intent is merely to change settings. The description leaves the agent to infer the entire usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.