delete_security_playbookPermanently delete one Security Playbook by ID.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "delete_security_playbook"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"ID (UUID) of the Security Playbook to delete."New value: +"ID."Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The unique identifier (UUID) of the Security Playbook to delete. This action is irreversible."New value: +"ID (UUID) of the Security Playbook to delete."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description's "Permanently" reinforces destructiveness but adds no new behavioral context such as permission requirements, cascade effects, or behavior when the ID does not exist. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds little beyond them.
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 a single tight sentence with the most important qualifier, "Permanently," front-loaded. There is no unnecessary wording.
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 simple one-parameter delete tool with rich destructive/idempotent annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. However, it omits useful context for a destructive operation, such as whether deletion cascades, what authorization is needed, or what happens if the playbook is referenced elsewhere.
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%, and the single parameter is fully required, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description only says deletion is "by ID" and does not add format, source, or validation details beyond the schema. A baseline 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 uses a specific verb ("Permanently delete") and resource ("Security Playbook") and scopes it to one record by ID. It clearly distinguishes this tool from create_security_playbook, update_security_playbook, get_security_playbook, and list_security_playbooks.
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 states the operation but gives no when-to-use guidance, no comparison with update_security_playbook or other alternatives, and no prerequisites. "Permanently" signals irreversibility, but there is no explicit instruction on when deletion is appropriate versus updating or retaining a playbook.
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.