google-workspace-mcp

contacts_batch_delete

Delete multiple Google Contacts in a single operation to quickly clean up your address book.

Instructions

Delete multiple contacts at once.

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": {
      "resource_names": "<resource_names>"
    },
    "name": "contacts_batch_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`resource_names`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete' without mentioning permanence, irreversibility, auth requirements, partial-failure behavior, or response implications. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool, though it could include slightly more detail without harming conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A destructive batch delete operation with no annotations and zero parameter documentation is under-specified. Even though the output schema exists and the parameter count is low, the description fails to provide essential context such as the shape of resource_names or safety notes, making the tool risky to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain what 'resource_names' means (e.g., format like 'contacts/123' vs simple IDs). The parameter name provides a hint, but without additional detail, an agent may not know what values to pass.

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 'Delete multiple contacts at once' has a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'contacts_delete' by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'at once.' It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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?

The description implies use when deleting multiple contacts, but it does not explicitly contrast with 'contacts_delete' or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The batch context is implied but not formalized.

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

Deploy Server