Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Qualtrics MCP Server

Qualtrics MCP Server

by yrvelez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

delete_quota

Destructive

Permanently delete a quota from a survey to remove its response limits and free up allocation.

Instructions

Permanently delete a quota from a survey

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": {
      "surveyId": "<surveyId>",
      "quotaId": "<quotaId>",
      "confirmDelete": "<confirmDelete>"
    },
    "name": "delete_quota"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quotaIdYesThe quota ID to delete
surveyIdYesThe Qualtrics survey ID
confirmDeleteYesMust be true to confirm deletion

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true already indicates the tool is destructive. The description adds 'permanently', reinforcing irreversibility, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like impact on related data or required permissions. It does not contradict annotations.

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 very short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as noting the requirement for confirmDelete.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple delete tool with three parameters and a destructive annotation, the description covers the basic action but lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., survey must exist) or side effects. It is adequate but not fully complete given the absence of output schema and sibling differentiation.

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?

Since the input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it also does not provide any additional context beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 'Permanently delete a quota from a survey' uses a specific verb and resource, making the action clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling delete tools like delete_survey or delete_quota_group, which have similar purposes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as deactivating a quota or using other quota management tools. It lacks any context about prerequisites or conditions.

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