Skip to main content
Glama

Timix.AI

by ai.timix

delete_custom_field

Delete a custom-field definition from the organization. If the field is mandatory and already has values stored on entities the service will reject the delete with a clear reason. Returns a preview unless confirm=true is set. Admin role required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoSet true to perform the action. Omit or false returns a preview only — nothing is written.
custom_field_idYesId of the custom field definition to delete.
idempotency_keyNoOptional caller-supplied key; retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses destructive nature, preview-on-delete behavior, rejection condition, and admin requirement. No annotations provided, so description fully bears the transparency burden. Idempotency key behavior is not mentioned, but schema covers it.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers return behavior (preview vs. actual delete) and mandatory field rejection. No output schema, but preview mention suffices. Could mention idempotency_key usage for completeness. Overall adequate for a delete tool.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds context for confirm parameter but does not elaborate on custom_field_id or idempotency_key beyond what schema provides. Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Clearly states it deletes a custom-field definition from the organization, distinguishing it from create_custom_field, update_custom_field, and set_custom_field_value.

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?

Provides context for when deletion is rejected (mandatory field with values) and preview behavior with confirm parameter. Mentions admin role requirement. Does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the description is sufficient for usage guidance.

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

All Timix.AI toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_time_report and log_time both create a single time entry with near-identical descriptions. There are also many similar getter/list tools that blur together, making it hard for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent: 'list' vs 'get' for similar operations, 'manage' combines create/update/delete, and 'use_favorite' is an outlier. This pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count1/5

With 114 tools, the set is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped server (typical 3-15). This overwhelms agents and suggests many tools could be consolidated or removed.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers a broad domain including customers, projects, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and user management, but there are gaps like no list_users or direct user listing, and some operations seem redundant rather than filling missing functionality.

Resources