Delete an artifact from storage.
Permanently removes an artifact and its associated memory record.
Args:
path: Full path of the artifact to delete
ctx: MCP context (automatically provided)
Returns:
Dict with success status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true. Description adds value by stating that it also removes the associated memory record, providing behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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?
Very concise, clear sections for description, args, and returns. No redundant information; every sentence is essential.
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?
Single parameter is well-explained, output schema exists (implied), annotations cover destructiveness, and description fully describes the effect (permanent removal of artifact and memory record). Complete for a delete tool.
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?
Input schema has no description for the path parameter (0% coverage). The description's Args section adds the meaning 'Full path of the artifact to delete', which compensates for the schema gap.
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?
Description clearly states the tool deletes artifacts from storage, explicitly mentions permanent removal of both the artifact and its associated memory record, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_artifact or retrieve_artifact.
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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives such as update or soft-delete. The destructive nature is implied but not directly contrasted with other operations.
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.