Skip to main content
Glama
murphywuwu

easysociable-mcp

by murphywuwu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Delete brand

delete_brand
Destructive

Move an obsolete brand kit to trash for permanent deletion. Use only when no runs need its styling; otherwise archive instead to preserve default brand themes.

Instructions

Move a Brand to trash for deletion. Call only when a brand kit is obsolete and permanently discarded. Alternatives: If existing runs still use this brand theme, prefer archive_brand to preserve styling safely. Destructive operation requiring explicit confirmation. Dependent design workflows may lose default brand styling. Returns deletion confirmation record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandIdYesThe unique identifier of the brand to move to trash.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandIdNoDeleted brand ID.
deletedNoTrue if deletion confirmed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.17
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "brandId": {
+      "description": "Deleted brand ID.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "deleted": {
+      "description": "True if deletion confirmed.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.16
    • addedInput schema / properties / brandId / description
      Added value: +"The unique identifier of the brand to move to trash."
  3. Addedv0.1.15

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds important nuance beyond them: the delete is a move to trash (not necessarily permanent purge), it requires explicit confirmation, and dependent design workflows may lose default brand styling. These downstream effects and the confirmation requirement are real behavioral context.

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?

Five short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage constraint, alternative, destructive warning, and return note are front-loaded in that priority order with zero filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, yet the description still notes the confirmation record. Combined with usage guidance, alternatives, and downstream-effect warnings, an agent has everything needed to call this destructive tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single brandId parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a Brand to trash for deletion') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling archive_brand. An agent can identify the operation and its scope 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('only when a brand kit is obsolete and permanently discarded') and names the alternative (archive_brand) with the exact condition that selects it ('if existing runs still use this brand theme'). Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools