delete_workflowPermanently delete a workflow and all its versions. Cannot be undone; endpoints or sub_workflow references to it fail cleanly at run/serve time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflow_id | Yes | the workflow 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?
The annotations already include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful detail: deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and downstream endpoints or sub_workflow references will fail cleanly at run/serve time. This gives the agent a concrete understanding of consequences beyond the annotation flag.
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, no filler, with the most important information front-loaded: permanent deletion and irreversibility. Every sentence adds value and the structure is easy to parse.
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 single-parameter delete tool with destructiveHint and an output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: scope of deletion, irreversibility, and downstream failure behavior. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage and already describes workflow_id as 'the workflow id to delete'. The description does not add parameter-level nuance, so the baseline score is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('delete'), the resource ('a workflow'), and the full scope ('and all its versions'), which goes beyond the title. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling delete_* tools by naming the exact resource type and its versioned nature.
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 scope is clear: this deletes the workflow and all versions, which helps an agent decide whether it is the right operation. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, such as when only a single version needs removal.
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.