deleteLogoDelete Logo
Remove the project logo. The stored image file is left in place.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | Application-level status code returned by this API. | |
| data | No | Always null. Removing the logo does not return the image. | |
| success | No | Indicates whether the request completed successfully. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / dataAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {},
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "Always null. Removing the logo does not return the image."
+}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 a genuinely useful non-obvious detail — that the stored image file is left in place — which the annotations do not convey.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the operative verb in the first sentence. Minor waste from repeating the title 'Delete Logo' before the actual description, but the file-retention note earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotent contract. Combined with the file-retention caveat, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the target is the project's own logo with no argument needed, with schema coverage at 100%.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Remove the project logo'), which cleanly separates it from getLogo and createLogo in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name or distinguish against an alternative, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens if no logo exists. The sentence about the stored file is a behavioral note, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.