gvt_delete_testPermanently delete a test session and all its associated results. This action cannot be undone. Use gvt_manage_test instead if you only want to hide a test from public view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tid | Yes | The 8-character test ID of the test to delete. |
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?
Annotations already flag the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false), so the baseline burden is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and includes 'all its associated results,' which clarifies the scope of the action. This is useful extra behavioral context.
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?
The description is two sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Permanently delete'), followed by a caution and an alternative. Every sentence contributes essential information; nothing is redundant.
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 destructive operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the consequence (permanence, irreversibility), the scope (associated results), and the alternative for a less severe action. Given the annotations and schema already carrying the safety profile, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (only one parameter, tid, well-described as 'The 8-character test ID of the test to delete'). The description does not add any new information about the parameter beyond the schema. Per the rubric, with high coverage the baseline is 3, and the description provides no additional semantic nuance.
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'), a clear resource ('test session and all its associated results'), and explicitly notes the permanence. It also differentiates itself from the sibling gvt_manage_test by clarifying the distinction between deletion and hiding, which makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Use gvt_manage_test instead if you only want to hide a test from public view.' This provides a direct when-not condition and names the alternative tool, leaving no ambiguity about selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.