VHGENGINE

by app.railway.up.engine-production-3bdc

delete_creator_profile

DestructiveIdempotent

Erase profile facts and consent history; retain a retraction marker. Admin scope.

    Already committed customer hook outputs are not silently deleted. No profile data is
    used for secondary learning or cross-customer retrieval today. One-way replay-key
    tombstones prevent delayed keyed writes from recreating the profile. Requires the current
    expected_version and confirm="delete". Errors: unauthorized, forbidden, not_found,
    conflict, idempotency_conflict, invalid_request, configuration_unavailable, rate_limited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`api_key`	No	API key for this call. Omit to fall back to the Authorization: Bearer / X-API-Key request header (streamable-HTTP only), then the VHGENGINE_API_KEY env var (the stdio default). No key resolvable -> unauthorized.
`confirm`	Yes	Must be exactly "delete" so an accidental call cannot erase it.
`profile_id`	Yes	Account-owned creator profile id returned by create/list profiles.
`idempotency_key`	No	Caller-chosen replay key (any string, unique per intended effect). A repeat call with the SAME key returns the stored result and is NEVER charged twice; the same key with different arguments is an idempotency_conflict. Omit and every call is a fresh, separately charged operation.
`expected_version`	Yes	Positive immutable profile version.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Committed-output and disabled-secondary-use boundary.
`deleted`	No	true once direct profile data was erased.
`replayed`	No	true when idempotency replayed the stored delete response.
`retained`	No	Erasure, job-race, and lineage retraction receipts.
`profile_id`	No	The erased profile id.
`last_version`	No	Last version erased.
`retracted_at`	No	Retraction time, ISO-8601 UTC.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even with annotations declaring destructive and idempotent hints, the description adds substantial value: what is retained (retraction marker), that committed hook outputs are not touched, that no data is used for secondary learning, and the one-way replay-key tombstone mechanism. It also lists the full error set, providing excellent behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core statement is front-loaded with an efficient first sentence. Additional sentences provide necessary caveats and error handling, though the privacy sentence about secondary learning is somewhat tangential. Overall structured and scannable.

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?

The description covers what is erased, what is retained, authorization scope, side effects, idempotency behavior, required parameters, and error scenarios. Given the output schema exists, it need not explain return values; it is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it ties expected_version and confirm to safety requirements, and explains the idempotency_key behavior via tombstones. This is more than baseline but does not deeply elaborate every 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 states a specific verb ('Erase') and resource ('profile facts and consent history') with a clear nuance ('retain a retraction marker'). It also specifies admin scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_creator_profile or delete_account.

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?

The description clearly indicates administrative scope and prerequisites ('Admin scope', 'Requires the current expected_version and confirm="delete"'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the context strongly implies its use for full erasure rather than updates.

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

All VHGENGINE tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, e.g., signup vs. delete_account, create_key vs. revoke_key, generate_hooks vs. score_hook. Even similar tools like generate_hooks and generate_hooks_batch are clearly differentiated by single vs. batch operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 32 tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_credits, create_checkout, revoke_key, list_outcomes) with no mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is slightly above the typical 15-tool range, but the domain is broad (account, keys, webhooks, generation, scoring, jobs, outcomes), and each tool has a specific purpose. No tools seem redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most lifecycle operations: CRUD for accounts/keys/webhooks, generation/scoring with batch and async variants, outcomes reporting, and auxiliary tools. Missing explicit delete for hooks (expire automatically) and some update operations, but no critical gaps.

Resources

Need Help?