Delete a skill.
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": {
"name": "<name>"
},
"name": "skill_delete"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a destructive mutation. It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, what permissions are needed, what happens if the skill does not exist, or whether dependent pipelines/schedules are affected.
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 short sentence with no filler and is front-loaded, which is good. But its brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency, so it does not earn a high score on structure.
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?
Although the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description omits the one thing an agent needs: what "name" refers to and what deletion entails. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation of a destructive operation.
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 0% and the single required parameter "name" is completely undocumented. The description does not clarify whether name is an exact display name, a slug, or an ID, nor how ambiguous or missing names are handled, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
"Delete a skill" states a specific verb and resource, so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it says nothing about scope or target that would distinguish it from sibling skill tools (skill_update, skill_import, skill_get) or from other delete tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as skill_update, and no prerequisites. The agent must guess whether this is the right tool for its situation.
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.