Skip to main content
Glama

fluentcrm_delete_tag

Remove tags from contacts in FluentCRM marketing automation by specifying tag IDs to manage contact segmentation and organization.

Instructions

Usuwa tag z FluentCRM

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagIdYesID tagu

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler in the CallToolRequestSchema switch statement that extracts tagId from arguments and calls client.deleteTag, returning the JSON response.
    case 'fluentcrm_delete_tag':
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(await client.deleteTag((args as any)?.tagId), null, 2) }] };
  • Input schema defining the required 'tagId' parameter of type number.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        tagId: { type: 'number', description: 'ID tagu' },
      },
      required: ['tagId'],
    },
  • Tool registration in the ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'fluentcrm_delete_tag',
      description: 'Usuwa tag z FluentCRM',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          tagId: { type: 'number', description: 'ID tagu' },
        },
        required: ['tagId'],
      },
    },
  • FluentCRMClient helper method that performs the actual DELETE API request to /tags/{tagId} and returns the response data.
    async deleteTag(tagId: number) {
      const response = await this.apiClient.delete(`/tags/${tagId}`);
      return response.data;
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is 'Usuwa' (removes/delete), implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects associated contacts, or has side effects. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Polish ('Usuwa tag z FluentCRM'), which is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be more structured by including key details like scope or alternatives, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity as a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral risks, return values, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. For a destructive tool, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical usage context.

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%, with the parameter 'tagId' documented as 'ID tagu' (tag ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Usuwa tag z FluentCRM' (Removes tag from FluentCRM) clearly states the action (removes/delete) and resource (tag), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'fluentcrm_detach_tag_from_contact'. It specifies what it does but lacks detail on whether it deletes the tag entirely or just removes it from a context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'fluentcrm_detach_tag_from_contact' (which removes a tag from a contact) and 'fluentcrm_delete_contact' (which deletes a contact), the description doesn't clarify if this tool permanently deletes a tag from the system or just detaches it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/netflyapp/fluentcrm-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server