Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@vitrion/zentria-mcp

@vitrion/zentria-mcp

Official
by vitrionbv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete-stl-flow

Destructive

Remove a Speed to Lead flow from Zentria CRM by its ID to eliminate outdated sales automation.

Instructions

Delete a Speed to Lead flow (DELETE /api/public/stl/flows/{id}). Scope: stl:write.

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-stl-flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFlow id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description matches that by saying 'Delete'. It adds the required auth scope and HTTP endpoint, but does not describe additional behavioral details such as irreversibility or effects on dependent data.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and pairs it with the endpoint and required scope. It contains no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter deletion tool with destructiveHint already in annotations, the description is sufficient: it identifies the resource, endpoint, required id, and auth scope. It does not describe the response body, but no output schema exists and deletion responses are typically implied.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear 'Flow id' description, so the baseline is 3. The endpoint path reinforces that id is the resource identifier but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('Speed to Lead flow') and includes the exact HTTP method and endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as get-stl-flow and update-stl-flow by the operation it performs.

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?

The scope requirement 'stl:write' gives useful context about when the call is permitted, and the delete verb implies when it should be used. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use deletion versus other flow operations.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools