CueFrame

Delete Brief

delete_brief

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a brief. Compose jobs already run from it are unaffected (they snapshot).

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": {
      "briefId": "<briefId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`briefId`	Yes	briefId (path).
`commandId`	No	Retry identity. A call repeated with the same commandId returns the first result instead of acting twice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026
- addedInput schema / $defs
```
Added value: +{
+  "__schema0": {
+    "maxLength": 128,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / commandId / $ref
```
Added value: +"#/$defs/__schema0"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / commandId / maxLength
```
Removed value: -128
```
- removedInput schema / properties / commandId / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```
- removedInput schema / properties / commandId / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / commandId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Retry identity. A call repeated with the same commandId returns the first result instead of acting twice.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that compose jobs already run from the brief are unaffected because they snapshot. It does not cover permissions or return behavior, but the key side-effect nuance is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most relevant side-effect caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the snapshot behavior of dependent compose jobs, which is the main non-obvious consequence. It could still mention irreversibility or authorization expectations, but annotations already flag destructiveness.

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%, so briefId and commandId are already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or semantic detail for either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a brief.' That is clear and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling deletion tools such as delete_composition or delete_project, but the resource is named.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by naming the action and noting that previously run compose jobs are unaffected. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus update_brief, delete_composition, or other alternatives, nor does it describe prerequisites or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All CueFrame tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.