Exclui permanentemente uma transcrição e seu arquivo de mídia no Transcreva.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "delete_transcription"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID da transcrição |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: the operation is permanent and it cascades to the media file. It omits permission/auth requirements, behavior when the id does not exist, whether any downstream references (e.g., speaker renames) are affected, and what the call returns.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The most consequential fact, permanent deletion, appears in the first word, and the cascade to the media file follows immediately.
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 one-parameter irreversible delete with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers irreversibility and the media-file side effect, which is the essential minimum. It still leaves an agent guessing about failure modes, permissions, and post-delete state, which matters more for a destructive tool than for a read.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single required "id" parameter, so the schema already defines it and the description adds no syntax, format, or example. Baseline 3 applies; the description neither helps nor hurts parameter understanding.
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?
States a specific verb ("Exclui permanentemente") and resource ("uma transcrição") and adds a side effect not implied by the name: the associated media file is deleted too. That, plus the fact it is the only destructive tool among siblings (get_/list_/rename_/quota), lets an agent distinguish it immediately.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent infers this is the tool for removing a transcription, and no sibling offers deletion so there is no real ambiguity. However, nothing tells the agent to verify with get_transcription first, nor what to do instead if the goal is only to hide/rename a recording.
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.