Skip to main content
Glama

Delete Saved Search

delete_saved_search
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a saved search by ID. Use list_saved_searches first to find the ID. Does not count toward your monthly searches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesSaved search ID (from list_saved_searches)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a non-obvious side effect—'Does not count toward your monthly searches'—which is not captured in annotations. This extra detail helps an agent understand the impact beyond the basic safety profile.

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?

The description consists of three short, purposeful sentences: the action, the prerequisite, and a relevant side-effect. No redundant or filler content is present, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the necessary steps (how to get the ID, the action, and a side-effect). It is sufficiently complete, though it could optionally mention that deletion is permanent, but that is already implied by destructiveHint.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, explaining it comes from list_saved_searches. The description repeats this same guidance without adding new semantics, so it provides no additional meaning 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete a saved search by ID') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_saved_searches, save_search, and update_saved_search. It also specifies the scope (by ID) and directs the user to list_saved_searches first, reinforcing the intended purpose.

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 provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Use list_saved_searches first to find the ID.' This gives clear workflow guidance. While it doesn't mention alternatives, no other delete tool exists among siblings, so the guidance is sufficient for correct usage.

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.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes. Some overlap exists (e.g., search_grantsplus and search_foundations both return foundations, but descriptions clarify the distinction). Also batch_ variants are comprehensive versions of the standard searches. Overall, agents can differentiate well.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., search_grantsplus, get_opportunity, list_saved_searches). Minor deviation with 'whats_new' (no underscore) and 'check_connection' (different verb form). Otherwise consistent.

Tool Count4/5

26 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but still reasonable for a comprehensive funding landscape server covering grants, procurement, foundations, saved searches, account management, and utilities. Each tool serves a clear purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core search, detail retrieval, saved search management, account information, and feedback. Missing are profile management or direct payment modification tools (only links provided). Minor gaps but overall complete for the domain.

Resources