Delete one of your custom signals. Refused by default if another of your signals references it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | When `true`, skip the reference check and delete. References will break on next recompile. | |
| signal | Yes | Custom signal slug (the signal name). A built-in name answers 404 — built-ins are read-only. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / force / defaultAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / force / descriptionPrevious value: -"When true, skip the reference check and delete anyway. Default false."New value: +"When `true`, skip the reference check and delete. References will break on next recompile."Input schema / properties / nameRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Custom signal slug.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / signalAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Custom signal slug (the signal name). A built-in name answers 404 — built-ins are read-only.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "name"
-]New value: +[
+ "signal"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses that deletion is refused by default when another signal references it, and that using force will break those references on recompile. This is valuable destructive-behavior context, though it does not additionally state whether deletion is irreversible or what permissions are required.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the most important caveat about reference checks follows immediately. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It explains the default behavior and the force escape hatch. The only minor gaps are the absence of any mention of output/response shape and explicit irreversibility, but those are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.
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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the default refusal consequence, which gives real meaning to the force parameter and the reference-check behavior. The signal parameter details are already well covered in the schema.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one of your custom signals.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like delete_universe and delete_webhook, and the operation is obviously distinct from create/update custom signal tools. The first sentence leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implies when to use the tool: when a custom signal needs to be removed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when the signal is a built-in or when the user should choose update instead. The usage guidance is adequate but left mostly implicit.
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.