loops_delete_contactDeletes a contact from Loops. Destructive. Supply email OR userId. Loops API: POST /v1/contacts/delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Email of the contact to delete. | ||
| userId | No | userId of the contact to delete. |
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 include destructiveHint: true, so the description's 'Destructive' is redundant. However, it adds the specific API endpoint and clarifies the need to supply exactly one of email or userId, which goes beyond the schema's optional parameters. This provides useful behavioral context.
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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds critical usage details. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple delete operation with no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the action, destructive nature, required input (one of two), and the API endpoint. It could mention what happens on success/failure, but the annotations and simplicity make this sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both email and userId. The description adds value by stating 'Supply email OR userId', clarifying that they are alternatives and that one must be provided. This enhances understanding beyond the raw schema.
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 clearly states the verb 'Deletes' and the resource 'contact from Loops'. It is distinct from sibling tools, as none of them are delete operations. The addition of 'Destructive' and the API endpoint further clarifies purpose.
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?
The description provides a hint about supplying 'email OR userId', implying at least one is required, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., updating instead of deleting). The usage is implied but not fully contextualized among siblings.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose and target resource (contacts, properties, lists, events, transactional emails, API key). No overlap or ambiguity in descriptions.
All tools follow a consistent 'loops_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case. Verbs are descriptive and nouns match the resource.
10 tools is well-scoped for the domain, covering contacts, properties, lists, events, transactional emails, and an API test. Neither sparse nor overloaded.
Covers core contact CRUD, property creation, listing, and sending capabilities. Minor gap: no update/delete for contact properties, but the surface handles primary workflows.