listmonk-mcp

Delete template

template_delete

Destructive

Permanently delete a Listmonk template by ID; deletion is blocked for the default template or one in use by a campaign.

Instructions

Permanently delete a template. Listmonk refuses to delete the default template or one in use by a campaign.

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": "template_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety bar is lower, but the description still adds real value by disclosing the two server-side refusal conditions that will cause the call to fail. It does not say whether the failure surfaces as an error or a silent no-op, which keeps it off a 5.

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 with the destructive scope front-loaded and the failure condition second. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and solid annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, permanence, and the main failure modes. The one real gap is provenance and semantics of the `id` argument, which an agent must guess.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%: the single `id` property carries no description, type-only documentation, and an exclusiveMinimum constraint. The description never mentions the parameter, so it adds no meaning — it does not say this is the template ID, nor that an ID can be obtained from templates_list or template_get.

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 template") with an explicit permanence qualifier that separates it from reversible operations. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as template_update, but the resource scope plus the template_* naming makes it distinguishable without opening the schema.

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?

The second sentence gives a clear negative condition — the call fails for the default template or one referenced by a campaign — which is genuine when-not guidance rather than a restatement of purpose. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. use template_update or campaign_update first to clear the reference), so the agent must infer the remediation path.

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