checklist_deleteDelete a checklist and its steps for good. Runs already started from it are untouched and stay readable: a run carries its own copy of the steps, so deleting the checklist does not erase what anybody signed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true. There is no undo and nothing is copied anywhere first | |
| checklist | Yes | The checklist id, e.g. CL-0001, or its name when only one carries it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds meaningful context: deleting the checklist does not affect already-started runs because runs carry their own copy of steps, so signed content remains accessible. This goes beyond the annotation and helps an agent understand real-world consequences before invoking.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core destructive action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently explains why existing runs remain readable.
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?
For a destructive two-parameter tool, the description provides the key context an agent needs: what is deleted, what survives, and that the action is permanent. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists and the core behavioral caveats are covered.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and already explains the `confirm` and `checklist` parameters, including the no-undo caveat. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a checklist and its steps for good.' This clearly distinguishes it from checklist_item_remove, which removes a single step, and from checklist_list/show, which only read. The scope of destruction is explicit.
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?
The description strongly implies the tool is for removing an entire checklist, not individual items, and clarifies the downstream effect on runs. It does not explicitly name alternatives like checklist_item_remove, but the 'for good' phrasing and the emphasis on runs being unaffected give an agent enough context to decide when this tool is appropriate.
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.