delete a persona
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "delete_persona"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | persona ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no statement of permanence, cascading effects on posts/launches, or whether the operation is recoverable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single short sentence with no waste, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing; there is no structure beyond the bare verb phrase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an irreversible destructive operation with no output schema, the definition omits critical context: whether deletion is permanent, what dependent data is removed, and any prerequisites. An agent has to guess these from annotations alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the required UUID 'id'. The description adds no extra meaning, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description does state a verb and resource ('delete a persona'), which is more than a bare restatement of the name, but it is essentially tautological with the tool name and offers no distinguishing scope versus siblings such as discard_persona or delete_all_posts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the adjacent discard_persona alternative that an agent would need to choose correctly between soft-discard and hard-delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.