delete_proxy_listPermanently remove a proxy list and immediately revoke its credentials. Use proxy_id and list_id to stop access for that list.
Delete a proxy list. The list's credentials stop working immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | list_... id from list_proxy_lists | |
| proxy_id | Yes | prx_... id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | ||
| proxy_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "list_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "proxy_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "proxy_id",
+ "list_id"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.1.8Input schema / properties / list_id / descriptionAdded value: +"list_... id from list_proxy_lists"Input schema / properties / list_id / patternAdded value: +"^(?:list_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{1,64})$"Input schema / properties / proxy_id / descriptionAdded value: +"prx_... id"Input schema / properties / proxy_id / patternAdded value: +"^(?:prx_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{1,64}|PRX[A-Za-z0-9]{1,32})$"v1.1.3Does 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 earns credit by adding real consequence detail beyond the annotations: the list's credentials stop working immediately, which tells the agent the effect is instantaneous and operationally impactful.
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-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is 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?
Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency. The description supplies the key behavioral consequence, though it omits whether deletion is permanent/reversible and any permission requirements.
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% and both required parameters (proxy_id, list_id) are documented in the schema, including which tool supplies list_id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource ("Delete a proxy list"), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_proxy_list or create_proxy_list, but the name plus description together make the action clear.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., update_proxy_list to modify instead of remove), and no note about prerequisites such as ownership or confirmation. The agent must infer usage purely from the word "delete".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.