Polytomic MCP Server

delete_bulk_sync

Remove a bulk data synchronization task from Polytomic by specifying its ID to manage data pipelines and free resources.

Instructions

Delete a bulk sync from Polytomic.

Args: id: The bulk sync ID to delete

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_bulk_sync"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states it's a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify if it's reversible, requires permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks critical behavioral context like safety warnings or usage prerequisites.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'id' parameter is 'The bulk sync ID to delete', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's minimal title ('Id'). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it could specify format or sourcing details.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a bulk sync from Polytomic'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_sync' or 'delete_connection', which would require a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing bulk sync), exclusions, or comparisons to similar deletion tools like 'delete_sync' or 'delete_connection'.

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