CallRail MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_notification

Delete a notification rule. The rule is gone. To keep but mute it, prefer update_notification(send_email=False, send_desktop=False, send_push=False).

Instructions

Delete a notification rule. The rule is gone. To keep but mute it, prefer update_notification(send_email=False, send_desktop=False, send_push=False).

Args: notification_id: Notification rule ID. account_id: CallRail account ID. Auto-resolves if omitted.

Returns: JSON string {"deleted": True, "notification_id": ..., "response": ...}. The response mirrors CallRail's body (often empty on 204).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account_id`	No
`notification_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive outcome ('The rule is gone'), the return format, and the 204 response behavior. It doesn't mention permissions or irreversibility explicitly, but the 'gone' phrasing implies permanence. A small gap but largely transparent.

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 tightly structured: a direct first sentence stating the purpose, a clear alternative, then formatted Args and Returns sections. No redundancy or fluff; every line serves a purpose.

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?

For a delete operation, the description covers the essential context: purpose, parameters, return format, and alternative behavior. It also notes the response behavior on 204. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: notification_id as the rule ID and account_id with auto-resolution, adding meaning beyond the schema's type/required fields. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'notification rule', and explicitly contrasts with `update_notification` for muting, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from the sibling `update_notification`. The phrase 'The rule is gone' reinforces the destructive scope.

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?

It explicitly provides a when-to-use versus alternative guidance: 'To keep but mute it, prefer update_notification...' and notes that account_id auto-resolves if omitted, giving clear context on when to use this tool over its sibling.

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

Deploy Server