listmonk-mcp

Delete bounce record

bounce_delete

Destructive

Delete a bounce record by ID without altering subscriber status; use subscriber_update to re-enable a subscriber.

Instructions

Delete a bounce record by id. Does not change the subscriber's status; use subscriber_update to re-enable a subscriber.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "bounce_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them by clarifying the side-effect boundary: subscriber status is untouched. It stops short of warning about irreversibility or behavior on a nonexistent id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, zero filler. The clarifying constraint follows immediately rather than being buried.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-param destructive delete with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential gotcha. Missing only minor behaviors like error-on-missing-id vs silent no-op.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Only one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description says 'by id' but adds no format detail (positive integer, exclusiveMinimum 0) beyond the brief phrase, so it minimally compensates for the undocumented schema.

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+resource ('Delete a bounce record by id'), which clearly distinguishes it from bounces_search and bounce_get. It does not explicitly contrast with other delete tools, but the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the boundary case and the alternative: deleting a bounce 'does not change the subscriber's status; use subscriber_update to re-enable a subscriber.' This routes the agent away from a common mistaken use, though it doesn't say when deletion itself is warranted.

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