Skip to main content
Glama

team_assignment_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes an assignment outright — only the assigner may call this. The row is removed first, then its attachment and any job photos are best-effort deleted from R2 afterward, so a storage hiccup never leaves the assignment stranded. NEXT: team_assignment_list to confirm it is gone.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "team_assignment_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe team_assignment id (team_assignment_list shows them).
titleNo
due_atNo
statusNo
priorityNo
started_atNo
accepted_atNo
artifact_idNo
assigned_toNo
declined_atNo
descriptionNo
photos_jsonNo
completed_atNo
reassigned_atNo
reassigned_byNo
attachment_keyNo
decline_reasonNo
attachment_nameNo
attachment_typeNo
previous_statusNo
completion_notesNo
previous_assigneeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: authorization is restricted to the assigner, the database row is removed before storage cleanup, and attachment/job-photo deletion is best-effort so a storage failure does not leave the assignment stranded. This directly clarifies the destructive and idempotent hints in the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and authorization rule, then deletion mechanics, then the recommended next step. There is no wasted text, and the ordering makes the key constraints easy to scan.

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 description covers the important behavioral context for a destructive operation: authorization, deletion order, best-effort storage cleanup, and how to verify the result. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain the schema's large set of optional fields or what the tool returns, though the follow-up tool partially covers verification.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 5%, and the description does not mention the required id parameter or explain why the schema exposes 21 additional optional assignment fields. For a delete tool with a single required identifier and many opaque optional properties, the description should clarify that id identifies the assignment and that the other fields are not needed.

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 and resource: "Deletes an assignment outright." The wording also distinguishes this from softer assignment changes by emphasizing outright deletion, so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: only the assigner may call it. It also names a follow-up tool, team_assignment_list, to confirm deletion, but it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as team_assignment_update.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources