Goodeye

delete_template_version

Destructive

Permanently and immediately erase a single template version.

This is permanent: the version row, all its attached files, all version verification records, and any content no longer referenced by any surviving version or skill version are removed from the live system at once. There is no recovery path. Use archive_template if you want a reversible alternative for the whole template. 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Serving gate: the version must first be unpublished (unpublish_template_version) before it can be erased. A still-published version cannot be permanently deleted because it is currently being served to readers. Unpublish it first, then call this operation. To remove the entire template including all its versions, use delete_template instead.

Version numbers remain monotonic with a gap where the erased version was. Surviving versions are not renumbered.

Owner only. Pointing at another user's template raises NotFound.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`version`	Yes	The version number to permanently erase.
`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?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral details: the permanent erasure, no recovery, the gap left in version numbers, the serving gate requirement, and Owner-only access with NotFound for other users. This goes well beyond the annotation's simple flag.

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?

The description is detailed yet concise (5 parts), front-loaded with the critical permanence warning, and every sentence provides utility. It uses bullet-like separate paragraphs for clarity without being verbose.

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, irreversible operation, the description covers all necessary context: the exact effect, prerequisites, alternatives, consequences to version numbering, and access control. The presence of an output schema also helps complete the picture. Nothing is missing for an agent to use it safely and correctly.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new semantics; it only implies the version is the target of erasure bind. That is sufficient given the schema's clarity.

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 clearly states the tool erases a single template version permanently and list the exact scope. It also distinguishes itself by name from siblings like delete_template and delete_skill_version, making it easy to differentiate.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: only after unpublishing the version, and it names alternatives like archive_template and delete_template. This is a textbook example of clear usage direction.

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.