Goodeye

delete_template

Destructive

Permanently and immediately erase a template you own.

This is permanent: the template, all its versions, all attached files, and all version verification records are removed from the live system at once. There is no recovery path. Use archive_template if you want a reversible alternative.

Encrypted backups age out within the platform's standard retention window (up to three months), so the data is not instantly erased from all systems everywhere, but it is no longer accessible through any product surface after this call.

Serving gate: if the template is not archived AND has at least one published version, deletion is refused. Unpublish the relevant version(s) or archive the template first, then call this operation.

Fork severing: any skill forked from this template keeps its own content copy. Only the fork's parent pointer is set to null. The fork remains fully usable; lookup_fork_lineage will report its source as permanently deleted.

Owner only. Pointing at another user's template raises NotFound. Works on both live (serving-gate permitting) and archived templates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`template_id`	Yes	The template to act on, identified by its UUID or @handle/slug.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJun 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing permanent deletion, absence of recovery, encrypted backup retention window, serving-gate refusal, fork parent pointer behavior, and ownership restrictions. This is model behavior transparency for a destructive op.

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?

Long but every sentence earns its place: permanence, recovery, alternative, serving gate, fork effects, ownership. Front-loaded with the most critical fact (permanent deletion), then consequences. No filler despite length.

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?

Coverage is exceptional for a destructive mutation: permanence, scope of deletion, backup retention, serving-gate refusal conditions, fork behavior, owner restriction, and compatibility with archived templates. With no output schema and destructive implications, all needed operational context is present.

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?

Parameter coverage in the schema is 100%: template_id is fully described as UUID or handle. The description adds ownership and NotFound behavior but no new parameter-specific semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('erase'), the resource (template), and the key constraint (you own). It clearly distinguishes from archive_template by emphasizing permanence, and the deletion scope (template, versions, attached files, verification records) is precise.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use the alternative (archive_template for reversible removal), when deletion is refused (serving gate for live templates with published versions), and who may call it (owner only). This is complete routing guidance.

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

All Goodeye 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.