delete_widgetDelete a widget by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| widget_id | Yes | Widget ID to delete (from list_widgets). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Confirmation that the widget was deleted from its page. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Widget ID to delete (from list_widgets).",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / widget_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Widget ID to delete (from list_widgets).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "widget_id"
+]Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / properties / success / descriptionPrevious value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is captured structurally. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as permanence, cascading effects, permissions, or irreversibility.
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 direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter delete operation.
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 with an output schema and destructive annotation, the description is nearly sufficient. The main missing element is a note distinguishing it from delete_widgets, but the schema and annotations cover the essential calling information.
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 widget_id parameter is clearly documented as coming from list_widgets. The description's 'by ID' adds no new semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Delete a widget by ID'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool delete_widgets, though the singular 'a widget' and 'by ID' imply a single-target operation.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus delete_widgets, archive operations, or other removal paths. The schema mentions obtaining the ID from list_widgets, but the description itself gives no usage context or exclusions.
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.