Delete a saved contact to stop accepting their invitations and prevent inviting them by name. This removes the connection so their agent can no longer reach you.
Delete a contact. Their invitations will no longer be taken, and you can no longer invite them by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The contact's name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"联系人的名字"New value: +"The contact's name"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine state-change context the annotations cannot convey: invitations stop being taken and the contact can no longer be invited by name.
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 with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the consequence detail. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and its lasting effects adequately. Minor gaps remain around whether the deletion is reversible or requires confirmation.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter (name) is fully documented there, so the description need not compensate. It adds no syntax, format, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a contact"), which is unambiguous and readily separable from siblings like agenthop_save_contact and agenthop_contacts. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative tool or scope the deletion further.
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?
No guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as agenthop_save_contact or agenthop_bye, and no prerequisites stated. The consequences are described, but the selection context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.