Tokenrip

Delete a job

job_delete

Destructive

Delete a job at the revision you read. The job is removed; its tasks and outputs stay, with no job, and the name can be used again. This cannot be undone, and repeating it does not succeed. Archive still pauses one (job_update with archived: true). A stale revision refuses CONFLICT with currentRevision and detaches nothing. A job you cannot read is UNAVAILABLE, the same not-found as job_get.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "expectedRevision": "<expectedRevision>"
    },
    "name": "job_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The job, by its id (job_create returns it; workspace_load lists your jobs and the others by id).
`why`	No	Required 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.
`expectedRevision`	Yes	The job's revision as you read it (job_get, job_create); a stale one is CONFLICT with currentRevision and detaches nothing.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tasks`	Yes	How many tasks no longer belong to the job.
`deleted`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-idempotent; the description goes beyond that with the exact collateral behavior (tasks and outputs survive orphaned, the name becomes reusable), the irreversibility, the failed repeat, and the CONFLICT/UNAVAILABLE error contract. This is behavior an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then consequences, then error paths — a sensible ordering with little filler. The telegraphic 'with no job' phrasing is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations already present, the description covers what it must: side effects on related entities, irreversibility, idempotency, and error semantics. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the description's revision phrasing largely restates the expectedRevision description already supplied in the schema. It adds no new syntax or format detail, 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 a job') plus the revision-scoped condition, which immediately separates it from job_update and the rest of the job_* family. An agent can pick this over job_update 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Names the alternative explicitly ('Archive still pauses one (job_update with archived: true)') and covers the failure routing (stale revision, unreadable job). It stops short of a full 'use this when X, not Y' framing, but the routing signal is clear.

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

All Tokenrip tools Inspect

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.