Delete purchase order by identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Response from the tool |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint true and readOnlyHint false, so the description adds only the fact that the target is a purchase order. It does not disclose consequences beyond deletion, such as what happens if the order is already fulfilled or whether deletion is permanent, but the core destructive behavior is covered by annotations.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and selection criterion. There is no fluff or redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.
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?
Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description omits the critical fact that no identifier parameter is exposed in the schema despite claiming deletion 'by identifier.' An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without knowing how to specify the target order, so the definition is incomplete in a practical, call-blocking way.
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?
The schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. However, the description explicitly references an 'identifier' that has no corresponding property in the input schema, creating confusion about what input the agent should provide. This makes the description actively misleading rather than helpful for parameterization.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Delete') and resource ('purchase order'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like deletePet and deleteUser. 'By identifier' adds context on the selection criterion, though it is not reflected in the input schema.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getOrderById, placeOrder, or deletePet/deleteUser. The usage context is only implied by the resource name, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are clearly namespaced by service (e.g., petstore-api, github-api, jsonplaceholder), which reduces cross-service confusion. Within each service, operations are generally distinct (e.g., getPetById vs updatePet). However, some overlap exists like updatePet and updatePetWithForm, and there are multiple 'get' tools across services that could be mixed up in a large set, but descriptions help.
Naming conventions are inconsistent across the set. Some tools use camelCase (github-api.getRepo), others use underscores (acme-mailer.send_email), and some are single simple verbs (echo-server.echo, memory.store). While each service follows its own style, the server as a whole lacks a unified pattern, making the naming chaotic.
With 38 tools, this server is heavily overloaded for a typical MCP scope. The tools span ten different services, indicating a broad aggregation rather than a focused purpose. This exceeds the recommended 3-15 tool range and even the 25+ threshold, making it feel like a collection of unrelated utilities.
The domain is unclear, but looking at each sub-service, most are incomplete. For example, github-api only offers read operations (no create/update/delete), jsonplaceholder has posts CRUD but only get for users, and open-weather lacks historical data. Memory and echo-server are trivial. The surface does not fully cover any single domain, leaving significant gaps for agent workflows.