delete_chartUse this when the user explicitly wants to permanently delete one saved chart. Deletion cannot be undone, and retrying an already completed deletion succeeds; requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Opaque 32-character saved-chart id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context: 'Deletion cannot be undone' elaborates on the destructive hint, 'retrying an already completed deletion succeeds' clarifies idempotency, and 'requires authentication' discloses a requirement not present in the annotations. This goes beyond what structured data provides.
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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the usage context and then includes irreversibility, idempotency, and authentication. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundancy or padding.
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 simple single-parameter destructive tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use it, side effects, retry behavior, and authentication. The agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing external details.
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 description does not mention parameters, but the schema fully covers the single 'id' parameter with a description ('Opaque 32-character saved-chart id') and pattern. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'permanently delete one saved chart.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rename_chart or update_chart. The addition of idempotency ('retrying an already completed deletion succeeds') further clarifies the exact behavior.
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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user explicitly wants to permanently delete one saved chart,' providing clear usage context. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the conditional phrasing implies this is only for explicit deletion requests.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_chart and get_chart_config are both retrieval-by-id operations that require careful reading to distinguish metadata/URLs from config. Additionally, get_preview_state is somewhat cryptic despite its description, but overall overlap is minimal.
All 13 tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (e.g., delete_chart, get_chart_config, list_themes). There are no deviations or mixed conventions, making the naming predictable and coherent.
With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped for a charting service. Each tool serves a distinct role in the workflow (reference, validation, CRUD, rendering), and the count is neither sparse nor overwhelming, fitting within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers the full chart lifecycle: create (save_chart), read (get_chart, get_chart_config, list_charts), update (update_chart, rename_chart), and delete (delete_chart). It also includes validation, rendering, reference data (examples, marks, themes), and preview state restoration, addressing practical needs. Minor gaps like explicit draft management are indirectly handled through update_chart's safeguards.