delete_widgetsDelete multiple widgets by ID in one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Array of widget IDs to delete (from list_widgets). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Confirmation, and how many widgets were deleted. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Confirmation, and how many widgets were deleted."
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds the batching context ('one call') but does not disclose additional behavioral details like irreversibility or partial failure behavior.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, target, mechanism, and batch nature efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter, an output schema, and annotations already signaling destructiveness. The description, combined with the schema, provides enough information 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%, with the ids parameter already documented as 'Array of widget IDs to delete (from list_widgets).' The description only reinforces that deletion is by ID, adding no new parameter-level information.
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 ('Delete'), a clear resource ('multiple widgets'), and a precise method ('by ID in one call'). It also naturally distinguishes itself from the singular delete_widget sibling tool.
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 implies when to use this tool: when multiple widgets need to be deleted in one batch operation. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for a single widget, use delete_widget instead.'
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.