Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Weav

by com.weav
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete agent training data item

delete_training_data
Destructive

Delete an agent training data item in Weav. For website/URL sources this also deletes discovered URLs and chunks.

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": {
      "training_data_id": "<training_data_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_training_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
training_data_idYesTraining data UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: for website/URL sources the deletion cascades to discovered URLs and chunks, warning the agent of broader side effects than the singular 'item' phrasing suggests.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the caveat about cascading deletion. No wasted language.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what the agent needs: what it deletes and the cascade side effect. It lacks only usage routing and any mention of irreversibility or permissions, which are minor given the annotations.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Training data UUID'). The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (Delete) plus the resource (agent training data item) and names the platform (Weav). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_training_data, get_training_data, and resync_training_data, though it doesn't explicitly call out those contrasts.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. The delete semantics are implied by the name and verb, but the agent gets no routing help among the many training-data siblings.

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

All Weav 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