Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Qualtrics MCP Server

Qualtrics MCP Server

by yrvelez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

delete_distribution

Destructive

Remove a specific survey distribution from Qualtrics by providing its ID and confirming deletion.

Instructions

Delete a distribution

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": {
      "distributionId": "<distributionId>",
      "confirmDelete": "<confirmDelete>"
    },
    "name": "delete_distribution"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmDeleteYesMust be true to confirm deletion
distributionIdYesThe distribution ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation signals destructiveness, but the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, side effects on related data). The confirmDelete parameter implies a safety measure, but this is not explained in the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but it is too brief to be truly helpful. It lacks structure (e.g., no explanation of confirmDelete's purpose) while still being minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the destructive nature, two required params, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return behavior, error conditions, or consequences, leaving the agent underinformed.

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% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline expectation.

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 (distribution), directly matching the tool's name. It is distinct among sibling delete tools targeting different resources, though it could be more specific about what a 'distribution' is.

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 (e.g., other delete tools) or prerequisites (e.g., distribution must exist, impacts on surveys or contacts). The agent must infer usage from context.

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