delete_api_templatePermanently delete an api template and all its versions. Cannot be undone; a workflow api_call that references it fails cleanly at run time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes | the api template id to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| 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 include destructiveHint: true; the description adds the irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), cascading version deletion, and the runtime failure behavior of referencing workflows. This is exactly the extra behavioral context that annotations do not provide. No contradiction.
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 short sentences; the key fact (permanent delete of template and all versions) is front-loaded and every clause adds information. No filler or redundancy.
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 low-complexity, single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the object scope, irreversibility, and downstream consequences (runtime failure). The presence of an output schema and annotations handles return and safety 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 single template_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no new parameter-level details, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'permanently delete' with the resource 'api template' and clarifies scope ('all its versions'). It is unmistakably distinct from sibling read, update, publish, and unpublish operations on api templates.
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 conveys clear context: this is an irreversible, destructive removal, and dependent workflow api_calls will fail at runtime. This implies use only when permanent removal is intended, but it does not explicitly name an alternative such as unpublish_api_template or state a direct 'when not to use' condition.
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.
Every resource family follows the same verb+noun pattern and each tool name uniquely identifies a resource-action pair (create_app vs create_app_version vs update_app vs publish_app). Closest overlaps like analyze_resource vs get_resource_graph and patch_datafile vs update_datafile are explicitly differentiated by their descriptions, so misselection risk is low despite the scale.
Names are almost uniformly verb_noun snake_case with a consistent lifecycle vocabulary: create/get/update/delete/list/publish/unpublish/version. Minor outliers like whoami and run_schedule_now are idiomatic and do not break the predictability of the set.
At 93 tools this far exceeds the calibration's 50+ extreme-mismatch case. The count is inflated by repeating create/get/update/delete/version/publish/unpublish across ten resource families; even though each family is systematic, the combined surface is very hard for an agent to navigate and keep in context.
Core CRUD/publish/version lifecycles are present for apps, workflows, endpoints, schedules, schemas, datafiles, and api templates, and dependency analysis is well covered. However, secret creation/updating, asset upload, custom-domain deletion, and version-range enumeration for several resource types are absent or left to the external dashboard, so agents hit a few manual dead ends.