Permanently deletes a Listmonk template by ID; verify existing templates first because deletion cannot be undone.
Permanently delete a template by ID. This cannot be undone. Check get_templates first so you do not delete one that is still needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes | Template 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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not carrying the safety burden alone. It nonetheless reinforces irreversibility ('This cannot be undone') and adds a concrete pre-check workflow, which is real value beyond the annotations; it doesn't mention effects on campaigns referencing the template.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded ahead of the safety advice. 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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent needs: irreversibility and a lookup-first safeguard. It stops short of saying what happens to campaigns that reference the template or what the response returns.
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 description coverage is 100% with a single well-typed required parameter (positive number), so the schema does the work. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, matching 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 plus resource ('Permanently delete a template') and the selector ('by ID'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the other delete siblings (delete_media_file, delete_mailing_list, remove_subscriber). An agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
Gives an explicit pre-flight instruction ('Check get_templates first') and the reason for it (avoid deleting something still needed), which routes the agent to a sibling before acting. No explicit when-not-to-use condition or named alternative for the deletion itself, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.