Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payware MCP Server

Payware MCP Server

Official
by payware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

payware_products_delete_airing

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes one airing rule for a specified product placement, helping merchants remove outdated or incorrect airing schedules via the PRM API.

Instructions

[Merchant] Delete one airing rule.

Endpoint: DELETE /products/{productId}/placements/{placementId}/airings/{ruleId} (PRM plan)

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": {
      "productId": "<productId>",
      "placementId": "<placementId>",
      "ruleId": "<ruleId>"
    },
    "name": "payware_products_delete_airing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ruleIdYesThe airing rule's ID, from payware_products_list_airings
productIdYesThe product's ID: pr + 8 letters or digits, e.g. pr7e4rCToG
useSandboxNoUse the sandbox (the default) rather than production
placementIdYesThe placement's ID: pl + 8 letters or digits, e.g. pl7e4rCToG

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes the PRM plan prerequisite, which is real context beyond annotations, but says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to dependent schedules, or failure modes for a rule in use.

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 lines, zero filler: the action and scope come first, followed by the endpoint and plan constraint. Nothing is redundant with the title or 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 simple four-parameter destructive call with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly, including the plan gate and hierarchy. Minor gaps remain around consequences of deletion, but no output schema is expected here.

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 formats, patterns, the sandbox default, and even a pointer to payware_products_list_airings for obtaining ruleId. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Delete') and a precisely scoped resource ('one airing rule'), then reinforces the scope with the full REST path showing it lives under a product/placement. This cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_placement, delete_product, and delete_audio, which act on different resources.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: '(PRM plan)' signals a plan-level prerequisite, and the singular 'one airing rule' hints that bulk removal would require a different tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as replace_airings for batch changes.

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