Skip to main content
Glama

delete_gym_workflow

Destructive

Delete a gym-wide workflow. (confirm-gated: previews until confirm: true)

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": {
      "organizationId": "<organizationId>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_gym_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute. If false/omitted, returns a preview only.
organizationIdYesGym id (from list_my_organizations)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the genuinely useful two-phase behavior: the call is a preview until confirm: true. That is real context an agent needs to avoid an accidental deletion. It still doesn't say what is destroyed (runs, approvals, history) or what permissions are required, keeping it below 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 clauses, zero filler, and the destructive/gated behavior is front-loaded right after the action statement. Nothing to trim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety gate but omits blast radius (what related records are removed) and authorization requirements. It is adequate to call safely in the two-step pattern, but not complete for an agent judging consequences.

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 67%: confirm and organizationId are already documented in the schema, and the description's confirm-gate note largely repeats the confirm parameter's own description. The id parameter carries no explanation in either place. With the schema doing most of the work, baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a gym-wide workflow"), and the "gym-wide" qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling delete_workflow. It stops short of naming the sibling outright, but an agent can distinguish scope 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the name and the confirm-gate note, but the description never says when to prefer this over alternatives like set_gym_workflow_enabled or update_gym_workflow, nor what preconditions exist (ownership/role, whether runs are affected). The agent must infer the when-to-use case.

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.