fynk MCP

Delete template dynamic field

delete-template-dynamic-field

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a dynamic field from a template.

Use this tool when:

The user explicitly asks to remove a dynamic field (a variable / fill-in field) from a template

A dynamic field cannot be deleted while it is referenced by a condition or a metadata value on the template; remove those references first. Use get-template-info with include=["dynamic_fields"] to discover the dynamic fields on a template and their UUIDs.

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": {
      "template_uuid": "<template_uuid>",
      "dynamic_field_uuid": "<dynamic_field_uuid>"
    },
    "name": "delete-template-dynamic-field"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`template_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the template the dynamic field belongs to
`dynamic_field_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the dynamic field to delete (use get-template-info with include=["dynamic_fields"] to find it)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deleted_dynamic_field`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: deletion is blocked by existing references from conditions or metadata values, which changes whether the call can succeed at all.

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 action, then bulleted trigger, then the blocking constraint. Efficient overall, with minor redundancy in restating the get-template-info lookup already present in the parameter schema.

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, annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile, and the prerequisite constraint is stated. The only small gap is that the description does not say whether a successful deletion is permanent or recoverable, though destructiveHint implies it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the get-template-info discovery hint that the description repeats almost verbatim. The description adds essentially no meaning beyond the structured fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a dynamic field from a template'), which is unambiguous and clearly separable from the create/update dynamic-field siblings by the verb alone. It does not explicitly name those siblings as the alternative for modification, so it falls 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

An explicit 'Use this tool when' block names the triggering user intent, and the description supplies a real precondition (a field referenced by a condition or metadata value must have those references removed first). It also routes the agent to get-template-info for discovery. It lacks explicit guidance on using update-template-dynamic-field for modification instead of delete.

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

All fynk MCP tools Inspect

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.