Skip to main content
Glama

Delete registry robot

delete_registry_robot
Destructive

Delete a registry robot and the credential holding its login (the twin of ankra registry robots delete). Whatever logs in with it stops working. Robots Ankra manages are refused. Requires credentials.delete.

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": {
      "robot_name": "<robot_name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_registry_robot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
robot_nameYesThe robot's name, from list_registry_robots.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds what the annotations cannot: the login credential is deleted alongside the robot, anything authenticating with it breaks, and Ankra-managed robots are rejected. Those are exactly the downstream consequences an agent needs before invoking a destructive call.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its blast radius before the restriction and permission note. The parenthetical CLI twin ("ankra registry robots delete") is the only near-filler, though it aids users who know the CLI.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations already covering safety hints, the description covers cascade effects, eligibility restrictions, and required permission. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and already documents robot_name as coming from list_registry_robots, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a registry robot") and immediately clarifies the cascade: the credential holding its login is deleted too. That distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like rotate_registry_robot_secret and update_registry_robot_projects.

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?

Gives a clear when-not condition ("Robots Ankra manages are refused") and a prerequisite ("Requires credentials.delete"). It stops short of naming alternatives such as rotating the secret when the intent is to keep the robot, so the agent must infer the sibling route.

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.