Skip to main content
Glama

Delete a stage

delete_stage
Destructive

Deletes a stage. The inbox can't be deleted. If the stage has applications, say where they go with moveToStageId; they aren't emailed about the move.

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": {
      "jobId": "<jobId>",
      "stageId": "<stageId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_stage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobIdYesThe job's ID, from list_jobs.
stageIdYesThe stage's ID, from get_job.
moveToStageIdNoAnother stage of the job, for its applications.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the inbox exception, that applications are relocated rather than destroyed, and that applicants are not emailed about the move.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the hard constraint, then the conditional parameter guidance. No wasted words or repetition of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive, three-parameter tool the description covers the key risks: irreversibility of the stage, the inbox exception, and application handling with the side effect on notifications. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether related stage settings (e.g. stage emails) are also removed.

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%, so baseline would be 3; the description earns more by explaining that moveToStageId is conditionally needed when the stage has applications and what effect it has (applications move quietly). It does not clarify what happens if the parameter is omitted while applications exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a stage') and immediately bounds it with the constraint that the inbox stage can't be deleted, which separates it from siblings like add_stage, rename_stage, and reorder_stages.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear when-not-to-use rule (the inbox is undeletable) and a conditional instruction for the case where applications exist (supply moveToStageId). It does not name alternative sibling tools for restructuring stages, but the preconditions are explicit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources