delete_artifactDelete an Artifact you own. Its URL stops working for everyone. Confirm with the user before calling this.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artifact_id | Yes | The Artifact id (art_…). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | Yes | ||
| artifact_id | Yes | ||
| already_deleted | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the URL stops working for everyone, and the agent must confirm with the user before invoking. This significantly clarifies the impact and safety expectations.
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 concise sentences front-load the action and consequence, followed by the critical user-confirmation requirement. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary filler.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with a robust schema and annotations, the description covers ownership, global impact, and confirmation. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are unnecessary here.
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%, so the artifact_id parameter is already well documented in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, but none are needed given the complete schema.
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 the exact action ('Delete an Artifact'), the resource type, and adds the ownership constraint ('you own'), which distinguishes it from sharing, updating, or listing artifacts. It is clear and specific.
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 gives clear context for when to call it: only for an artifact the user owns, and only after user confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the destructive nature makes the intended use clear.
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.
Tools are grouped into clear resource families (artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, channels) and descriptions explicitly redirect between create_artifact and create_presentation. The main potential confusion is create_presentation vs publish_narrated_presentation, since both produce presentations but differ in narration source; the descriptions do clarify this.
All tools use snake_case verb_noun naming with consistent families like get_artifact, get_artifact_thread, and get_presentation_spec. publish_narrated_presentation is longer but still follows the verb_noun pattern, and there are no mixed casing styles or erratic naming conventions.
19 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the count is justified by four clear subdomains: artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, and channels. No tools are redundant, though the set is large enough to feel slightly heavy.
Artifacts have full CRUD plus sharing, and threads have create/read/list/reply/resolve. Presentations cover authoring spec, creation/publishing, status, analytics, and reading context, but there is no delete or explicit update endpoint for presentations and no exposed way to fetch mentionables; these are workable gaps rather than fatal ones.