Wellness Project

delete_injury

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete an injury entry. Also removes all severity history for that injury.

SELECTOR — pass id if known, or injury (a body part or injury type substring, case-insensitive, e.g. "shoulder") optionally narrowed by date (an injury active on that day). Exactly one of id or injury required. If injury matches more than one entry, the call errors with candidate IDs to retry with.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Injury ID to delete. Alternative to injury.
`date`	No	Optional, narrows the injury selector to one active on this date (YYYY-MM-DD). Ignored when id is given.
`injury`	No	Alternative to id: body part or injury type substring, case-insensitive (e.g. "shoulder"). Optionally narrow with date.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Human-readable result text returned by the tool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / date

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional, narrows the injury selector to one active on this date (YYYY-MM-DD). Ignored when id is given.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"Injury ID to delete. Required."New value: +"Injury ID to delete. Alternative to injury."

addedInput schema / properties / injury

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alternative to id: body part or injury type substring, case-insensitive (e.g. \"shoulder\"). Optionally narrow with date.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "id"
-]
```

First observedAug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: deletion is permanent, severity history is also removed, and ambiguous injury matches cause an error returning candidate IDs. This goes well beyond the structured hints and clearly sets expectations for side effects.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: effect first, side effect second, then selector rules. Each sentence earns its place and no information is repeated from the schema or annotations. The use of an em-dash separator and explicit rule statements makes it easy to parse.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description supplies everything else needed: selection strategy, disambiguation behavior, requiredness despite no schema-required params, and destructive consequences. The tool is fully usable based on this description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is met. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity between id and injury, the exact-one-required contract, the role of date as a narrowing filter, and the error behavior on ambiguous matches — all beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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: 'Permanently delete an injury entry.' The scope is precise, and naming the cascading removal of severity history distinguishes this from update_injury and log_injury. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what side effects come with it.

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 clear operational guidance: how to choose between id and injury, when to use date to narrow, and that exactly one selector is required. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives like update_injury for non-destructive changes, but the selector guidance is detailed enough for practical use.

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

All Wellness Project 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.