Skip to main content
Glama

delete_agent_tool

DestructiveIdempotent

DESTRUCTIVE: remove an HTTP tool from an agent's draft. Confirm with the user.

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "tool_id": "<tool_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_agent_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
purposeNoRequired on tools that read data or reports; recommended on every tool. One sentence: what you are doing and why (for example "finding this caller's open ticket to answer them"). Building a report, dashboard, analytics or an export is a SautiDesk Pro feature done by the report tools, not by pulling records.
tool_idYestool UUID to delete
agent_idYesagent UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds non-redundant behavior: the deletion applies to the agent's draft and requires user confirmation. It does not clarify whether published agent versions are affected or whether the removal can be undone, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive warning and ending with the required confirmation step. No unnecessary wording.

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 low-complexity destructive tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description supplies draft scope and the confirmation requirement. It leaves a small gap around interaction with published agent versions, but is otherwise adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, with agent_id, tool_id, and purpose documented in the schema. The description only implies the agent/tool scope through 'an agent's draft' and adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('an HTTP tool from an agent's draft'), distinguishing it from sibling delete_agent and from upsert_agent_tool. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

States a prerequisite to confirm with the user before deleting and constrains the operation to an agent's draft. It does not name alternatives (e.g., upsert_agent_tool for modification) or when deletion is inappropriate, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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.

Resources