Skip to main content
Glama
xuanji86

FastBound MCP

by xuanji86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete pending disposition

delete_disposition
Destructive

Delete a pending, uncommitted disposition draft from FastBound. Runs a dry-run preview by default; set confirm to true to permanently remove the draft.

Instructions

Delete a PENDING (uncommitted) disposition draft. Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true. Destructive write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesGUID of the pending disposition to delete.
accountNoWhich configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.
confirmNoSet true to actually execute. Omit or false returns a DRY RUN preview that sends nothing.
auditUserNoEmail recorded as X-AuditUser for the ATF audit trail. Overrides FASTBOUND_AUDIT_USER for this call. Must be an active user on the account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / account
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds the crucial dry-run-by-default behavior and explicitly labels the operation as a destructive write. It does not mention whether deletion is permanent or whether special permissions are required, but the confirmation flow and annotation give agents solid safety context.

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 compact: one topic sentence plus a dry-run/confirm note and a destructive-write tag. Every phrase earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

All invocation-critical behavior is covered: target scope, dry-run default, confirmation flag, and destructive nature, with all four parameters documented at 100% schema coverage. It does not describe the return payload or optional account/audit-user nuances, but the schema handles those, and nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's dry-run and confirm statements largely echo the schema's confirm parameter description without adding new meaning. It does not enrich the account or auditUser parameters beyond what the schema already says.

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 verb ('Delete') and a precise resource ('PENDING uncommitted disposition draft'), which distinguishes it from committed disposition operations and sibling acquisition/item delete tools. The title and description are aligned and leave no ambiguity about what the tool acts on.

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 description implies when to use the tool—only for pending dispositions—and gives invocation guidance (dry-run by default, pass confirm:true). However, it never explicitly names when not to use it or calls out an alternative sibling tool, so the agent must infer the boundary from the word 'pending'.

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