Delete a workflow 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": "workflow_delete"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The workflow id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds the ownership authorization requirement, which is useful context. It does not explain what dependent data is destroyed or whether deletion is permanent, so it adds only moderate value beyond annotations.
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 wasted words. The core action and ownership constraint are stated immediately.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter destructive tool, and the annotations already communicate destructiveness and idempotency. The description adds the key ownership constraint, making it adequate for correct invocation. It could be stronger by noting permanence or cascading effects, but the low complexity and rich annotations make it reasonably complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter 'id' is already documented as the workflow id. The description implies the id identifies a workflow the caller owns but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 workflow. The ownership constraint ('you own') adds meaningful scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as workflow_update or workflow_read, so it falls short of a 5.
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 description implies the tool is used to remove a workflow, and it adds the ownership prerequisite. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no warning about irreversibility, and no alternatives or related workflows.
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.