delete-board-toolPermanently delete a Blipboard board and all its scenes. Requires the board's secret pushToken. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boardUrl | Yes | The board displayUrl returned by create-board, or its bare 21-character display token. | |
| pushToken | Yes | The board's secret push token. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description appropriately discloses destructive behavior ('permanently delete', 'cannot be undone') and auth requirement. No rate limits or other side effects are mentioned, but for a simple delete action, this is sufficient.
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?
Two concise sentences covering purpose, requirement, and consequence. No wasted words.
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?
The description fully covers the purpose, irreversible nature, and auth requirement for a simple delete operation. No output schema needed, and sibling tools are well differentiated.
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%, and the description adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides for both parameters. Thus, baseline score of 3.
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 'delete', the resource 'Blipboard board and all its scenes', and adds critical details about permanence and auth requirement. It is easily distinguished from siblings like create, read, update.
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 mentions the required pushToken and the irreversible nature, implying preconditions and warnings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the name and context make it clear.
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 targets a distinct operation on Blipboard boards: create, delete, push scenes, read, and update. No overlap in functionality, agents can easily differentiate.
All tools follow a consistent 'verb-board-tool' pattern (e.g., create-board-tool, push-scenes-tool), with verbs in imperative form and clear noun references.
With 5 tools, the server covers the core actions needed for managing split-flap display boards without unnecessary duplication or missing essentials.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: create board, read its state, push scenes, update style, and delete. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.