Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tokenrip

by com.tokenrip
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete artifact version

artifact_version_delete
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete one version by its own id (versionId names its artifact), except the artifact's last remaining version. Standalone: the owner. Workspace artifacts: editors, with why; expectedWorkspaceRevision is optional and refuses (CONFLICT) if the artifact changed since. A version a task's review round uses (its draft, or an approver's edit) is kept while that task exists: VERSION_IN_USE with details.task and details.round. A version you cannot read is NOT_FOUND.

Tool call template

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": {
      "versionId": "<versionId>"
    },
    "name": "artifact_version_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
whyNoRequired for workspace items: one sentence on what the person is trying to accomplish, in their terms, not a description of this edit. Every workspace write takes one; sessions and summaries record themselves from it. At most 300 characters.
versionIdYesThe version to delete, by its own id (it names its artifact).
expectedWorkspaceRevisionNoOptional: refuse (CONFLICT) if the artifact changed since this workspaceRevision.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deletedYes
versionIdYes
artifactIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the last-version guard, the review-round retention rule with the exact error payload (VERSION_IN_USE plus details.task and details.round), optimistic concurrency via expectedWorkspaceRevision returning CONFLICT, and that unreadable versions surface as NOT_FOUND. These are the failure modes an agent most needs to anticipate before invoking a destructive call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tight and front-loaded: the core action and its one hard exclusion come first, followed by permissions, concurrency, and error semantics in descending priority. The telegraphic fragments ('Standalone: the owner') trade a little readability for density, but no sentence is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive single-version delete with an output schema already covering return shape, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: authorization per scope, the guard against removing the last version, concurrency protection, and the three distinct error outcomes. Nothing material is left to inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines why, versionId, and expectedWorkspaceRevision in near-identical language. The description mainly reinforces the conditional relationship (why is a workspace-scope requirement; expectedWorkspaceRevision is optional and triggers CONFLICT) rather than adding new parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete one version by its own id') and immediately clarifies a subtle scoping point — versionId names its artifact, so no artifactId is needed. That detail alone separates it from artifact_delete and artifact_versions_prune, which an agent might otherwise confuse with it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete when-not conditions: the artifact's last remaining version is protected, and a version in a task's review round is kept while the task exists. It also states the permission model per scope (owner for standalone, editors for workspace). It never names a sibling such as artifact_versions_prune as the alternative for bulk cleanup, so routing between the two is left partly implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tokenrip toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources