Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

cnvs.app

by app.cnvs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete Column

delete_column
Destructive

Delete a kanban column by id. Tasks in the column are removed with it. Get the id from list_tasks.

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": {
      "board_id": "<board_id>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_column"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
board_idYes
access_keyNo8-character lowercase alphanumeric board access key when the board is locked (legacy 6-character lowercase alphanumeric keys are also accepted). Equivalent to setting the `X-Board-Key` HTTP header on the JSON-RPC POST. Omit for unlocked boards. Obtain via POST /api/boards/<id>/lock.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / access_key / description
      Previous value: -"6-char board access key (a-z, 0-9) when the board is locked. Equivalent to setting the `X-Board-Key` HTTP header on the JSON-RPC POST. Omit for unlocked boards. Obtain via POST /api/boards/<id>/lock."New value: +"8-character lowercase alphanumeric board access key when the board is locked (legacy 6-character lowercase alphanumeric keys are also accepted). Equivalent to setting the `X-Board-Key` HTTP header on the JSON-RPC POST. Omit for unlocked boards. Obtain via POST /api/boards/<id>/lock."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the `destructiveHint: true` annotation, the description discloses the cascading deletion of tasks, which is critical for an agent to know. It also clarifies how to obtain the column ID, adding value over the structured metadata. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero fluff. Every word earns its place, immediately stating the action, the critical side effect, and where to find the required ID.

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?

The essential side effect (task deletion) is explicitly called out, and the ID sourcing tip is helpful. It omits error handling or edge cases, but given the simplicity of the operation and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to act.

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?

The description clarifies that `id` is the column ID and references `list_tasks` to obtain it, partially compensating for the low 33% schema coverage. However, it does not explain `board_id`'s purpose or format, leaving some ambiguity for that parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete a kanban column by id') and the direct consequence ('Tasks in the column are removed with it'), distinguishing it from siblings like `delete_task` and `update_column`. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 mentioning the operation and provides a sourcing tip ('Get the id from `list_tasks`') but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., moving tasks first) or conditions to avoid. The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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

All cnvs.app toolsInspect
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.

Resources