Skip to main content
Glama

Delete field

delete_field
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a project key/value field. Requires projects:write and the editor role; protected projects keep their sensitive fields.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "delete_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
projectYesProject slug or id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already establish that the operation is destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent. Beyond that, the description usefully names both the required `projects:write` scope and editor role, and explains that protected projects retain their sensitive fields.

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 operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently adds authorization requirements and an edge-case rule. There is no redundant or promotional wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter deletion tool, the description and annotations cover the principal invocation and safety considerations. It remains unclear how protected-project preservation is reported or what happens for an unknown project or key, and there is no output schema to clarify the result.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: `project` is documented as a slug or id, while `key` has only length constraints. The description ties the key to a project key/value field but adds no format, exact-match, or lookup semantics, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb "Delete" and resource "a project key/value field" make the operation and scope immediately clear. The field wording provides some separation from login and secret deletion, but it does not explicitly resolve potential overlap with those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It supplies concrete authorization prerequisites and discloses an important protected-project limitation. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over related secret-deletion or field-update operations.

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