Delete a user_setting you own.
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": "user_setting_delete"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The user_setting id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already specify destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds the ownership constraint but does not explain permanence, error behavior, or side effects beyond what annotations declare.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. Every word contributes to identifying the action and ownership scope.
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?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool with complete annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. The main missing element is any statement about whether deletion is permanent or whether missing/unauthorized IDs produce specific errors.
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?
There is one required parameter, 'id', with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a user_setting'. The ownership qualifier adds scope, and the verb makes it distinguishable from sibling read/list/upsert tools, though no sibling is explicitly named.
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 phrase 'you own' implies an authorization constraint for when this tool is valid. However, there is no explicit guidance on alternatives such as user_setting_upsert or what to do if the setting is not owned, leaving usage context only implied.
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.