Meta Council

Delete Workflow Template

delete_workflow_template

Delete a custom workflow template the caller owns. Built-in templates cannot be deleted. This removes the saved definition; runs already started from it are unaffected. Requires authentication and the workflows:write scope.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "delete_workflow_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	Slug of the template to delete, from list_workflows.
`expected_template_fingerprint`	No	Optional. The definition fingerprint you last saw for this template, returned by update_workflow_template when it last succeeded. Supply it and the write refuses, changing nothing, if the stored template is no longer the one that fingerprint names -- someone else edited or deleted it since you read it. Omit it and the write proceeds as it always has, overwriting whatever is there. This is not the definition_sha reported for a run: that one also reflects global configuration, this one names the stored file alone.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "text": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "text"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

Changed1 schema field changedAug 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected_template_fingerprint

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The definition fingerprint you last saw for this template, returned by update_workflow_template when it last succeeded. Supply it and the write refuses, changing nothing, if the stored template is no longer the one that fingerprint names -- someone else edited or deleted it since you read it. Omit it and the write proceeds as it always has, overwriting whatever is there. This is not the definition_sha reported for a run: that one also reflects global configuration, this one names the stored file alone.",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "minLength": 64,
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description states 'This removes the saved definition,' which is a destructive operation on the template. Yet annotations declare destructiveHint: false. That is a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description contradicts the semantic meaning of destructiveHint even though it adds useful detail about runs being unaffected and the workflows:write requirement. Because the description contradicts an annotation, this dimension scores 1.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the operation and ownership, the built-in caveat, and the side effect plus auth requirement. There is no filler, and all claims are front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

For a two-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the key facts: who can delete, what is not deletable, the consequence of deletion, and the necessary scope. It does not state that deletion is permanent or irreversible, which is especially relevant because annotations do not disclose this. Aside from that gap, the context is complete enough 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.

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, which is acceptable because the schema does the heavy lifting. There is no sign the description improves understanding of slug or expected_template_fingerprint, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource and adds two key qualifiers: 'the caller owns' and 'custom' as opposed to built-in templates. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like create_workflow_template and update_workflow_template. The agent immediately understands both what the tool does and what it does not.

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?

The description gives usable context: it can only delete templates the caller owns, and built-in templates are excluded. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the ownership and built-in caveats convey a meaningful when/when-not boundary. It could have added an explicit pointer to update_workflow_template for cases where the caller wants to retain the definition, but the current guidance is clear enough.

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

All Meta Council 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.

Resources

Need Help?