Skip to main content
Glama

登録したデータをすべて削除する

delete_my_data
Destructive

会社プロフィール・ウォッチリスト・既読情報・申請書類(案件と記入内容)をすべて削除する。ユーザーが明示的に全データの削除を依頼した場合のみ使う。 申請案件1件だけを消したい・始め直したいときは使わず、delete_application を使う。

    実行前にユーザーへ削除内容を説明して確認し、confirmation に「すべて削除する」と正確に指定する。
    元に戻せない。APIキー(接続設定)は残るため、プロフィールを登録し直せば引き続き使える。
    

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": {
      "confirmation": "<confirmation>"
    },
    "name": "delete_my_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmationYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that the action is irreversible, that the API key remains, and that re-registering the profile allows continued use. It also requires user confirmation with a specific string, adding critical safety context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with what gets deleted and when to use it, followed by exclusions and safety instructions. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 destructive tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers everything needed: scope of deletion, usage conditions, alternative tool, confirmation requirement, irreversibility, and what remains. No critical gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'confirmation' parameter, but the description fully compensates by specifying the exact required value ('すべて削除する') and the need to explain deletion to the user beforehand.

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 states a specific verb ('削除する') and enumerates the exact resources deleted (company profile, watchlist, read-status, application documents). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling delete_application by saying not to use it for single-application deletion.

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 clearly states to use only when the user explicitly requests deletion of all data, and names the alternative delete_application for single-case deletion or starting over. It also prescribes explaining the deletion and confirming beforehand with an exact string.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources