datacrazy_leads_delete
Excluir lead (DELETE /api/v1/leads/{id}). [write, altera dados]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| account | No |
DataCrazy
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims a delete operation (altera dados) but the annotation destructiveHint is false, which contradicts the destructive nature of deletion. The description does not disclose whether deletion is permanent or irreversible, and the annotation contradiction lowers the score to 1.
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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core function and bulk support without unnecessary fluff.
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?
The description provides the basic context (delete lead) but lacks details on return values, error handling, or side effects. Given there is no output schema, it could be more complete about expected outcomes, especially for a destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the 'ids' parameter for bulk execution, but does not explain 'body' or 'account'. Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description should compensate more fully; it only partially clarifies parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to delete a lead, with the HTTP method and endpoint. It also mentions bulk support, distinguishing it from other lead operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for deleting leads and supports bulk deletion, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other similar tools (though there are no direct alternatives for lead deletion). It could be clearer about prerequisites or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., leads_create vs businesses_create). Even nested tools like leads_activities_list are clearly scoped from general activities_list. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency5/5
All resource tools follow the exact pattern 'datacrazy_<resource>_<action>' with actions being create, get, list, patch, update, delete, plus a few composite verbs like finish_create or actions_win_create. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count2/5
70 tools is far beyond the usual 3-15 range for an MCP server, making it overwhelming and unwieldy for agents. Although the scope is broad (full CRM), the sheer count exceeds the recommended threshold for effective tool discovery.
Completeness4/5
Most resources have full CRUD coverage (leads, activities, tags, lists, products, businesses, business_loss_reasons). Some gaps exist: attendants only have get/list, conversations lack delete/update, and pipelines are read-only. These are minor and workable, but not complete lifetime coverage.