Frostbyte

signals_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a user signal (test or spam submissions). Unlike signals_dismiss it keeps no decision history, only a 'deleted signal' activity entry: linked tasks stay but lose its evidence and votes. Requires confirm: true. Project membership required.

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>",
      "signalId": "<signalId>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>",
      "context": "<context>"
    },
    "name": "signals_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true to confirm deletion
`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."
`signalId`	Yes	The signal ID
`projectId`	Yes	The project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

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 irreversibility, what audit trail remains ('deleted signal' activity entry), and the downstream consequence that linked tasks survive but lose the signal's evidence and votes. That is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 action, then the sibling comparison, then the side effects and prerequisites. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers safety profile, prerequisites, comparative alternative, and the cascade effects on linked tasks. There is no material gap an agent would need to fill before calling it.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the confirm const and the context word-count rules. The description only reinforces that confirm: true is mandatory and that project membership is required; it adds little semantic meaning 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a user signal') and gives concrete examples of the objects it targets ('test or spam submissions'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling signals_dismiss, so an agent can pick the correct tool 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?

It names the alternative (signals_dismiss) and states the key differentiating condition — no decision history is kept, only a 'deleted signal' activity entry — which tells the agent when this is the right choice. It also states prerequisites (confirm: true, project membership). It stops short of an explicit 'use this when X, not Y' rule, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?