Deletes a call flow by its UUID; if the flow is published, unpublish it first because deletion is refused with a 409 error.
Delete a call flow. A PUBLISHED flow refuses deletion (409) — call conduyt_unpublish_call_flow first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Call flow UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 409 failure mode for published flows, but says nothing about irreversibility, whether dependent wiring/number assignments are cleaned up, or what a successful response contains — all material for an unannotated destructive operation.
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 short sentences: the action first, then the blocking constraint. Zero filler and every clause carries actionable information.
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?
For a one-parameter delete with no annotations and no output schema, the critical pre-condition is covered, but the description leaves open reversibility and side effects on related resources (numbers, wiring, functions) that an agent should know before calling.
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?
Single parameter `id` is fully documented in the schema as a "Call flow UUID" (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about how to obtain the id or whether it accepts other identifiers, so it does not exceed the baseline.
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?
"Delete a call flow" is a specific verb plus resource, and the tool name/sibling set makes clear it targets the call-flow entity, distinct from conduyt_delete_call_flow_function, conduyt_delete_ring_group, etc. An agent can tell immediately what this removes.
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 description names the blocking condition (flow is PUBLISHED, returns 409) and routes the agent to the exact sibling (conduyt_unpublish_call_flow) with the ordering requirement ("first"). That is explicit conditional use plus an alternative, not implied guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.