delete_mcpDelete an MCP and everything under it — its keys, events, rollups and sessions. This cannot be undone and the data is not recoverable. Confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mcp | Yes | The MCP, by name or id. Names are matched case-insensitively; call list_mcps if unsure. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | What was deleted, so the confirmation names it. | |
| deleted | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While the annotations already mark this as destructive, the description adds significant behavioral detail: it enumerates the full cascade (keys, events, rollups, sessions), states irreversibility and unrecoverability, and instructs the agent to confirm with the user. This goes well beyond the annotation's boolean destructiveHint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, all of which carry essential information. The scope is stated first, followed by the irreversibility warning and the user-confirmation requirement. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one required parameter, a complete schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all critical behavioral aspects. The agent knows exactly what will be deleted, that it is irreversible, and that user confirmation is needed before invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the single 'mcp' parameter at 100% coverage, including matching semantics and a fallback suggestion to list_mcps. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an MCP'), and immediately clarifies scope by enumerating what is deleted ('keys, events, rollups and sessions'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like get_mcp, create_mcp, and rename_mcp by emphasizing the destructive, exhaustive nature of the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the intended use clear: it is for the irreversible removal of an MCP and all associated data. It adds an explicit operational guideline to confirm with the user first, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Nevertheless, sibling context makes the appropriate use obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.