Skip to main content
Glama

Entalpa Requirements MCP

Packs Delete

packs_delete
Destructive

Delete a pack the user owns. Projects already checked with it keep their questions and the review's verdicts.

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": {
      "pack_id": "<pack_id>"
    },
    "name": "packs_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pack_idYesA pack's UUID, from packs_list.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deletedYesTrue when the item was deleted.
pack_idYesA pack's UUID, from packs_list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: deletion does not cascade — projects already checked with the pack retain their questions and the review verdicts, which tells an agent the operation is safe with respect to existing project data.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the irreversible consequence stated immediately after.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, ownership, and the non-cascading effect. It stops short of stating whether deletion can be undone, which is the one thing an agent might still need for a destructive call.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself pointing at packs_list as the source of pack_id. The description adds nothing about the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Delete a pack") plus an ownership scope ("the user owns"), which cleanly separates it from the many other *_delete siblings operating on projects, requirements, stories, or interface contracts.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the destructive nature and the stated consequence suggest this is for retiring a pack the user no longer wants. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., packs_update) and no mention of confirmation or prerequisites beyond ownership.

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