Skip to main content
Glama

Delete account metadata

delete-account-metadata
Destructive

Delete one of the account's own metadata field definitions.

Use this tool when:

  • The user explicitly asks to delete a metadata field

metadata_uuid comes from list-account-metadata, and the user must have made clear which field they mean - either by naming it, or because it is the field this conversation has been about. Ask which one they mean when that is not clear, offering the candidates by their display name.

Deleting a field also removes every value recorded for it, on every document and template in the account, and none of that can be brought back. So deleting a field the account has recorded values for is refused until the user has confirmed it: the refusal names the field and how many documents and templates hold a value for it - then repeat the call with confirmed_deleting_values_in_use: true once they have confirmed it. Send that only in answer to such a refusal, never as a matter of course.

Put the effect to the user in their own terms and ask before going ahead - "deleting Discount Rate would also remove the value 12 documents hold for it, shall I go ahead?" - rather than quoting the refusal back at them. Name the field you are about to delete either way, and never delete more than the user asked for.

Where the user wants a field to stop being filled in rather than to lose what it already holds, clear its prompt with update-account-metadata instead: that takes the field out of fynk's AI analyses and leaves the values on their documents alone.

Only the account's own fields can be deleted. fynk's system fields are provided to every account and cannot be removed, system_reference fields included - use update-account-metadata to change how one of those is configured for this account.

Deletion is refused while a bulk metadata operation is still running for the field.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metadata_uuidYesUUID of the metadata field to delete, as returned by list-account-metadata
confirmed_deleting_values_in_useNoOnly in answer to a refusal naming how many documents and templates hold a value for the field: true states that the user has been told what the deletion takes with it and has confirmed it. Leave it out otherwise

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
removed_valuesNoWhat the deletion took with the field, to report back to the user
deleted_metadataNo

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?

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses the cascade (all values on every document and template are removed irreversibly), the confirmation-refusal protocol gating confirmed_deleting_values_in_use, and the refusal while a bulk metadata operation is running. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and organized with bullets/logical paragraphs that earn their place for a destructive tool, though the confirmation flow is restated across two paragraphs, adding some redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not describe return values, and it covers the destructive, irreversible, and refusal semantics plus alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented; the description nonetheless adds protocol-level meaning for confirmed_deleting_values_in_use (send only in answer to a refusal, never as a matter of course) and clarifies provenance of metadata_uuid, exceeding the schema baseline.

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 opening sentence states a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Delete one of the account's own metadata field definitions.' It immediately demarcates the boundary against siblings by noting system fields (including system_reference) cannot be deleted and routing those cases to update-account-metadata.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('user explicitly asks to delete a metadata field'), a required precondition (metadata_uuid comes from list-account-metadata and the field must be unambiguous), and a named alternative for the adjacent intent (clear 'prompt' via update-account-metadata to stop a field being filled without losing values).

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