delete_custom_benchmarkDisable access to a custom benchmark. Keeps only a minimal audit record; no underlying Agentery data is touched. Pass benchmark_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| benchmark_id | Yes | Your cb_ token |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "JSON result; identical to the text content block.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by clarifying this is a soft disable that retains only a minimal audit record and touches no underlying Agentery data — a meaningful qualification of 'destructive'. It stops short of stating whether the disable is reversible or what permissions are required.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core semantics (disabling, not deleting) before the reassurance about data safety and the parameter note. Nothing is redundant.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations carry safety/idempotency, so the description only needs to cover intent and side effects — which it does well. It omits whether the benchmark can be re-enabled and what the audit record entails, minor gaps for a one-parameter tool.
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 single parameter is documented as 'Your cb_ token'. The description's 'Pass `benchmark_id`' merely restates the schema rather than adding format or sourcing guidance, so the baseline 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?
Names a specific operation on a specific resource ('Disable access to a custom benchmark') and immediately resolves the ambiguity of 'delete' by clarifying it is a soft disable that preserves an audit record. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like update_custom_benchmark or get_custom_benchmark, so it falls just 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 purpose implies when to call it (when a benchmark should no longer be accessible), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no alternative named — an agent must infer that update_custom_benchmark is the choice for modification and that this is the terminal removal path.
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.