Permanently delete a mailing list and its subscriptions while keeping subscribers intact; use when you need to remove a list without deleting subscriber records.
Permanently delete a mailing list and its subscriptions. The subscribers themselves are kept and only leave this list. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | List ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 still earns credit for disclosing the cascade behavior — subscriptions are removed while subscriber records survive — which annotations cannot express; 'cannot be undone' reinforces rather than contradicts the hints.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its permanence, followed immediately by the non-obvious consequence for subscribers. No filler.
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 destructive tool, the definition covers action, permanence, and side effects on subscriber data; no output schema exists and none is needed to call it. It only stops short of mentioning error conditions or how to obtain list_id.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description does not add anything about list_id format, valid ranges, or how to discover an ID (e.g., via get_mailing_lists), which would have been the only way to 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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (mailing list) plus the destructive scope (its subscriptions), and clarifies that subscriber records are not deleted — a distinction that separates it from remove_subscriber and update_mailing_list.
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 intent is implied clearly enough (permanent removal of a list), but the description never states when to prefer alternatives such as update_mailing_list or unsubscribing members individually, nor any prerequisites like list ownership or existence checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.