Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Linked API

by io.github.Linked-API
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

nv_delete_saved_search

Delete an owned saved search by its string ID. An absent search returns savedSearchNotFound. English interface only. Plus required. Returns a workflow acknowledgement; use get_workflow_result with operationName nvDeleteSavedSearch.

Linked API actions are queued into a cloud-browser workflow and may take several minutes. The server returns immediately after starting the workflow with {status: 'pending'|'running', pendingReason, workflowId, operationName, message}. To retrieve the final result, call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId and operationName — it will long-poll until completion or the request budget elapses, then return either the final result or another in-progress snapshot. Do not retry the original tool while a workflow is still running; that creates duplicate queued work.

A pending workflow carries pendingReason: 'queued' means it is waiting its turn behind other work on the same account and will start within minutes. 'outsideWorkingHours' means the account has configured working hours and the workflow is parked until they reopen — possibly the next working day. In that case get_workflow_result returns immediately instead of polling, message states when the window opens, and you should report that to the user rather than looping.

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": {
      "savedSearchId": "<savedSearchId>"
    },
    "name": "nv_delete_saved_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
savedSearchIdYesOwned saved-search ID as a positive decimal string.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes far beyond that: it discloses asynchronous workflow queuing, multi-minute latency, the immediate acknowledgement shape, the two pendingReason values and their meaning (including 'outsideWorkingHours' parking until the next working day), and the duplicate-work risk of retrying. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is front-loaded and precise, but the bulk of the text is generic workflow boilerplate that likely repeats verbatim across many tools in this server. It is organized into coherent paragraphs, but a per-tool description carries a lot of duplicated text.

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 async tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the acknowledgement payload fields, the follow-up call, the not-found error case, latency expectations, and pending-state handling. Nothing critical is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents the positive-decimal-string pattern, so the description's "by its string ID" adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Delete an owned saved search by its string ID") and adds the ownership and error condition ("absent search returns savedSearchNotFound"), which separates it cleanly from siblings like nv_retrieve_saved_searches, nv_create_saved_search, and nv_delete_list.

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 clearly directs the agent to get_workflow_result with operationName nvDeleteSavedSearch to obtain the outcome, and explicitly warns not to retry while a workflow is running. It also states the Plus requirement and the English-only constraint. It does not explicitly contrast against other delete-style tools, but the routing guidance is concrete.

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

All Linked API toolsInspect
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.

Resources