Remove a saved connector by its ID. Use this to delete an unused connector permanently; to change a connector's configuration, use update_connector instead.
Delete one saved connector by id. Use update_connector to change config without losing the saved definition. Returns connector_id with deleted: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connector_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds the consequence that deleting removes the saved definition (unlike update_connector) and specifies the success response shape: 'connector_id with deleted: true.' This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.
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 front-load the action, then provide the relevant alternative and the return value. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant 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 delete with no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, which sibling covers the alternative use case, and what the caller gets back. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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?
The schema only names connector_id as a required string with minLength 1. The description adds the operational meaning: it is the id of the saved connector being deleted. For a single obvious parameter this is enough, though no format or prefix guidance is given.
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?
The description opens with a precise verb and object: 'Delete one saved connector by id.' It also names the sibling update_connector, so an agent can distinguish deletion from configuration updates without inspecting other schemas.
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?
It explicitly routes the 'change config' use case to update_connector and frames deletion as the operation that removes the saved connector. This gives clear selection criteria relative to the closely related sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.