slidecold-mcp

by slidecold

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Delete a proxy

delete_proxy

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a proxy by ID, returning success even when no matching proxy exists; requires accounts:write scope.

Instructions

Delete a proxy. Required API key scope: accounts:write. DELETE /proxies/{id} Returns success even if no proxy matched.

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_proxy"
  }
}

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the required API key scope (accounts:write), the underlying DELETE /proxies/{id} route, and the notable edge case that the call succeeds even when no proxy matched.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four short front-loaded lines: action, authorization requirement, endpoint, and edge-case behavior. Nothing is redundant and the most important fact (that this is a delete) leads.

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

Completeness4/5

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 annotations already carrying safety hints and no output schema to explain, the description is sufficient — scope requirement and the always-succeeds caveat are the key operational details. A minor gap is that it does not state whether deletion is permanent or what cascading effects occur on campaigns using that proxy.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not clarify where the proxy 'id' comes from (e.g., obtainable from list_proxies), adding no meaning beyond the schema's 'Path parameter `id`'.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a proxy'), which is unambiguous against siblings like create_proxy, update_proxy, test_proxy, and list_proxies. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the CRUD verb alone makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — an agent infers it should call this when removing a proxy. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance (e.g., that removal is permanent and unrecoverable, or when to use update_proxy instead).

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

Deploy Server