Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Argorant

by com.argorant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete a reply label

argorant_delete_reply_status
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete one of the workspace's own reply labels for good; replies that carried it go back to Other. Use it only for the workspace's own labels. Standard labels cannot be deleted, so hide them with argorant_update_reply_status instead. Ask the user for explicit approval first, and set confirmed=true only with that yes. It is free. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#inbox

Tool call template

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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_delete_reply_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesThe label's key, from argorant_reply_statuses.
confirmedNotrue only after the user's explicit yes to deleting this label

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what those hints cannot: deletion is permanent, labeled replies are reassigned to Other, and the call must be preceded by explicit user confirmation. The confirmed=true gating and the "It is free" cost note are behavior no structured field conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The most consequential facts, permanence and the reply reassignment, are front-loaded in the first clause, and every later sentence carries a distinct rule (scope, alternative, approval, cost). The staccato "It is free." and the trailing docs link read slightly tacked-on but do not obscure anything.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, irreversible operation this covers everything an agent needs: what it destroys, what happens to dependent data, which labels are ineligible, the fallback tool, and the confirmation requirement. With annotations and an output schema already present, no gap remains that the description needed to fill.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, so the baseline would be 3. The description still earns a bump by explaining the protocol behind confirmed (set it only after the user's explicit yes), which clarifies intent rather than just restating the type, though key is left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Delete one of the workspace's own reply labels for good") and immediately states the side effect ("replies that carried it go back to Other"). That combination of scope plus consequence lets an agent separate this from argorant_update_reply_status or argorant_create_reply_status without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the positive case (only the workspace's own labels), the exclusion (standard labels cannot be deleted), and names the sibling to use instead (argorant_update_reply_status) with the reasoning ("hide them"). It also prescribes the approval step, so the when-to-use decision and the human-in-the-loop gate are both explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Argorant toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources