OpenAPI MCP Gateway

Delete purchase order by identifier.

delete_order

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes an order by its integer ID. Use IDs below 1000 to avoid API errors.

Instructions

For valid response try integer IDs with value < 1000. Anything above 1000 or non-integers will generate API errors.

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": {
      "orderId": "<orderId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`orderId`	Yes	ID of the order that needs to be deleted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.2Aug 11, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / orderId / format
```
Added value: +"int64"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / orderId / title
```
Removed value: -"Orderid"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"upstream_callableArguments"
```
First observedv1.0.0Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that values above 1000 or non-integers will generate API errors, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe the success response or any side effects beyond the destructiveHint already provided. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the key usage caveat. It contains no fluff and earns its place.

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 simple delete operation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential caveat about ID values. It does not mention the success response or behavior for valid deletions, but this is partially covered by the tool's known effect and annotations.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a basic description of orderId, but the description adds a critical valid-range constraint (integer, < 1000). This clarifies parameter semantics in a way the schema does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The title 'Delete purchase order by identifier.' clearly states the action and resource. The schema's parameter description reinforces this. It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_order_by_id or delete_pet.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description only provides an ID range constraint ('integer IDs with value < 1000') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or contextual cues for selection. The existence of delete_user and delete_pet shows alternatives exist, but no comparison is made.

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