slidecold-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete a campaign

delete_campaign

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a campaign by ID using the campaigns:write scope, allowing you to remove outdated or unwanted campaigns from the account.

Instructions

Delete a campaign. Required API key scope: campaigns:write. DELETE /campaigns/{id}

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Path parameter `id`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 the required API key scope (campaigns:write) and the underlying DELETE endpoint, which is genuinely useful auth/behavioral context, but it says nothing about permanence, cascade effects on recipients/stats, or whether deleted campaigns can be recovered.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action, followed by scope and endpoint. No filler; each line contributes something. It is arguably slightly over-terse for a destructive operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is close to adequate: scope and endpoint are stated. What is missing is the consequence of the call — irreversibility and impact on related campaign data — which matters more for destruction than for reads.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already carries the burden. The "DELETE /campaigns/{id}" line mildly reinforces that id is a path identifier, but adds no format details or constraints beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a campaign"), which is unambiguous against siblings like create_campaign or update_campaign. It does not explicitly differentiate from other delete_* siblings such as delete_folder or delete_audience, though the resource name does most of that work.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives (e.g., stopping or pausing a campaign rather than deleting it). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server