Delete a channel from Agent Uplink when allowDevDelete is enabled in admin settings. Logs move to trash for restore or emptying.
Deletes a channel (off by default — works only when the user turns on allowDevDelete in the admin app settings). Logs move to the trash, where the admin app can restore or empty them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channelId | Yes | Channel ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further and adds the enablement gate plus the crucial soft-delete semantics: logs move to trash where an admin can restore or empty them. That reversibility detail is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, both front-loaded: the action first, the destructive/recoverable behavior second. No filler, no restating of the tool name or schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description covers what matters for a destructive one-param tool: the allowDevDelete gate and the trash/restore lifecycle. It stops just short of describing the failure mode when deletion is disabled (error vs. no-op), which is the only remaining ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single channelId parameter ('Channel ID to delete'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for channelId, making this the baseline case where structured fields do the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Deletes a channel') that unambiguously separates it from siblings like delete_server and create_channel. The enablement caveat is attached immediately, so the agent knows the scope and the precondition in one read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'off by default — works only when the user turns on allowDevDelete' clause is an explicit precondition that tells the agent when this call will actually succeed, which is stronger than most delete tools. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., archive/leave) for when deletion is disabled, so it is not a full when/when-not treatment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.