Delete your subtitle removal task. Deleting does not refund charged credits.
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": {
"taskId": "<taskId>"
},
"name": "delete_subtitle_task"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the schema: deletion does not refund charged credits. It omits whether deletion is permanent/undoable or what state the task must be in.
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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequential credit warning immediately after; no 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 one-parameter delete with annotations already conveying destructiveness, the description covers purpose and the key non-refund caveat. It could still mention irreversibility or the taskId source, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.
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 0% and the single parameter (taskId) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not say what the ID refers to, its format, or how it is obtained, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete ... subtitle removal task'), which an agent can distinguish from read siblings like get_subtitle_task or list_subtitle_tasks. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to delete versus when to leave a task alone, no preconditions (e.g., task must exist/be in a finished state), and no alternative named. The credit note is a side-effect warning, not usage direction.
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.