delete_screenerDelete a saved screener by ID.
Args:
screener_id: The screener UUID from list_screeners
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| screener_id | Yes | ||
| strategy_id | No | Strategy this call belongs to. UUID from list_strategies. The card this call writes keeps that id. Omit when the call is not part of a strategy. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / strategy_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Strategy this call belongs to. UUID from list_strategies. The card this call writes keeps that id. Omit when the call is not part of a strategy.",
+ "title": "Strategy Id"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not required to re-state danger, but it also adds nothing: no mention of permanence, no per-ID vs bulk semantics, no effect on dependent strategies. For a destructive mutation the description should confirm irreversibility rather than just repeat the tool name.
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 short elements, front-loaded with the action and key, with no filler. The Args block largely restates the schema but earns its place by naming the sibling that supplies the ID.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the one required parameter is covered. However, for an irreversible delete with a secondary strategy_id parameter whose relevance is unexplained, the definition leaves real gaps an agent would face at call time.
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 coverage is 50%: strategy_id is fully documented inline, while screener_id carries no schema description, and the description compensates by explaining it is the UUID obtained from list_screeners. That covers both parameters adequately, though it says nothing about what strategy_id means for a delete operation.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a saved screener') plus the lookup key scoping it ('by ID'), which cleanly separates it from list_screeners, run_screener and update_screener. It stops short of contrasting itself against siblings explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.
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 only procedural hint is where to obtain the ID ('from list_screeners'); there is no statement of when deletion is appropriate, no prerequisites, and no warning about irreversible removal or what happens to screeners referenced by a strategy. The agent is left to infer all conditions.
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.