delete_shotDelete a logged shot from history. Restores the bean's remaining weight (which is derived from logged doses). Hard delete: there is no undo. To fix a mistake on an otherwise-valid shot, prefer update_shot over delete-and-relog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shot_id | Yes | ID of the shot to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| deleted_shot_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "deleted_shot_id": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "deleted_shot_id",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the irreversibility itself is structured data — but the description adds real information beyond it: the bean's remaining weight is restored and is derived from logged doses. That side effect could not be inferred from annotations or schema. Minor gap: the idempotentHint=true annotation sits slightly awkwardly with a hard delete (a second call would target a missing row), and the description does not address repeat-call 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the non-obvious side effect, then the routing rule. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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?
Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the side-effect and alternative-tool guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and safely.
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 documented as 'ID of the shot to delete'. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance (e.g. where to get shot_id) beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a logged shot from history') and immediately separates it from the sibling that handles corrections ('prefer update_shot over delete-and-relog'). An agent can distinguish it from update_shot without opening either schema.
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?
Gives an explicit when-to-use condition: only for removing a shot from history, not for fixing a mistake on a valid shot — in which case update_shot is named as the alternative. This is exactly the routing guidance the dimension asks for.
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.