Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

LexQ

by io.lexq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete Policy Group

lexq_groups_delete
Destructive

Delete (archive) a policy group. A deployed group cannot be deleted (P-020); undeploy it first with lexq_deploy_undeploy, which also ends a running A/B test. This cannot be undone. The group no longer appears in lexq_groups_list and its name can be reused right away. Calls that change it (settings, versions, rules, starting an A/B test, publish, deploy, rollback, scheduling a deployment) return 409 P-059. If it was ever executed, deployed, or replayed, it is kept for audit; otherwise it is permanently deleted after 30 days.

Tool call template

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": {
      "groupId": "<groupId>"
    },
    "name": "lexq_groups_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupIdYesPolicy group ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuine context beyond them: irreversibility, immediate name reuse, disappearance from lexq_groups_list, 409 P-059 responses for subsequent mutating calls, and the audit-retention versus 30-day permanent-deletion distinction. None of this is recoverable from the annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The critical constraint and irreversibility warning are front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information. The enumeration of every mutating call type that returns 409 P-059 is somewhat dense, but it is not wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, error behavior, and post-deletion visibility and retention. Nothing material an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single groupId parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no further detail about the ID (e.g., where to obtain it), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, "Delete (archive) a policy group," and immediately clarifies the archive semantics, which distinguishes it from lexq_groups_update and lexq_groups_list. An agent can identify the operation without consulting the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states an explicit precondition and exclusion (a deployed group cannot be deleted, P-020) and names the alternative tool to use instead (lexq_deploy_undeploy), including the side effect that undeploying ends a running A/B test. This is exactly the when-not-plus-alternative guidance an agent needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All LexQ toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources