monapay_delete_email_configPermanently deletes an email notification config by ID, removing it from the system so it no longer sends alerts.
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.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that deletion is permanent/irreversible, which is important for a destructive operation. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or what happens to linked notifications after deletion.
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 very short and front-loaded: 'Xoá vĩnh viễn' / 'Permanently delete' appears immediately. Both bilingual lines earn their place with no filler or redundancy.
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 with one required parameter, and the schema covers that parameter fully. The description adds the key permanence warning, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves expected return behavior and side effects unspecified.
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 single required parameter config_id is already documented as a UUID for the email config. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action ('permanently delete') and a clear resource ('email notification config'), which fully clarifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list, create, and update email configs by using the verb 'delete'.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives such as monapay_update_email_config for modifying a config instead of deleting it, nor does it warn about conditions like invalid or already-deleted config IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.