delete_intent
delete_intentDelete generated intent analysis for a guide
Removes previously generated intent analysis for the given guide.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guideId | Yes | ID of the guide |
serpmantics
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only indicates deletion without disclosing side effects, reversibility, permissions, or behavior on non-existent intent. Minimal transparency.
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 sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. Efficient and clear.
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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention the effect (e.g., permanent removal) or response, but current version covers essentials.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'guideId' described as 'ID of the guide'. The description adds no new meaning, just a near-paraphrase. 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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'generated intent analysis for a guide', distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_guide or delete_internal_links.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources (guides, eeat, intent, internal_links, meta, outline, score, credits, tokens). However, some pairs like create_eeat and create_eeat_competitors are very similar and could cause confusion, though their descriptions clarify the difference.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools consistently use a verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, delete_). Minor inconsistencies include 'get_aissistant_tokens' (typo) and 'get_credit_ledger' (singular vs plural), but overall the pattern is clear.
Tool Count4/5
28 tools is on the higher end but justifiable for a comprehensive SEO analysis platform covering guides, multiple AI features, EEAT, credits, and tokens. A few tools could be merged (e.g., get_credits and get_aissistant_tokens), but the count is still reasonable.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers CRUD for guides and most AI features, plus token/credit management. A notable gap is the lack of a get_score tool after create_score, and some features like updating EEAT analysis are absent. Overall, the core workflows are supported.