세션의 특정 키를 삭제합니다.
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": {
"session_id": "<session_id>",
"key": "<key>"
},
"name": "scratchpad_delete"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | 삭제할 키 | |
| session_id | Yes | 세션 식별자 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'deletes' without disclosing irreversibility, effects on missing keys, or any side effects. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence in Korean that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for its simplicity.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the complete schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., irreversibility) and usage guidance leaves clear gaps, preventing a higher score.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both required parameters (key, session_id), and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the action and target: 'Deletes a specific key from the session.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scratchpad_write (add/update) and scratchpad_read, using a specific verb and resource.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or situations where deletion is appropriate. The description is purely functional with no usage cues.
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.