Frostbyte

delete_area

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete an area — requires confirm: true. Before calling, tell the user which area will be deleted and how many tasks it holds (list_tasks with areaId and status "all"), and wait for an explicit yes in chat; never delete on your own initiative. Its tasks are kept, just left without an area.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "areaId": "<areaId>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>",
      "context": "<context>"
    },
    "name": "delete_area"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`areaId`	Yes	The area ID
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true, and only after the user has said yes in chat
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`projectId`	Yes	The project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description adds the non-obvious consequence that child tasks survive and become area-less instead of being cascaded. The confirmation gate and the 'never delete on your own initiative' constraint are behavioral rules not encoded anywhere in the annotations or schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive nature and the confirm requirement, then the confirmation protocol, then the side effect on tasks. No filler, no repetition, and the most decision-critical facts come first.

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 one-shot operation with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: irreversibility, the mandatory confirmation flow, the auxiliary call to quantify impact, and what happens to dependent tasks. 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.

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description earns above it only for the list_tasks/areaId/status "all" hint, which tells the agent how to populate or verify areaId and size the blast radius before committing. The confirm:true and context parameters are merely restated from the schema, so no further credit is given.

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 ("Permanently delete an area") plus the immediate hard requirement (confirm: true), which cleanly separates it from delete_task, delete_release, and update_area in the sibling list. An agent knows exactly which object this removes and that the removal is irreversible.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit pre-call protocol: tell the user which area and how many tasks it holds, wait for an explicit yes, never act on its own initiative. It also names the concrete way to gather that evidence (list_tasks with areaId and status "all"), so the when-to-use condition is operationally complete rather than abstract.

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

All Frostbyte tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?