noticed

delete_action

DestructiveIdempotent

PERMANENTLY delete an action that should NOT exist — created by mistake, a duplicate, or no longer relevant. This is IRREVERSIBLE: it removes the row outright and does NOT stamp a completion. If the follow-up actually HAPPENED, use complete_action instead (that records it as done). Get the action_id from get_person → relationship.actions or list_actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action_id`	Yes	The action to permanently delete (from get_person → relationship.actions or list_actions).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether noticed completed the operation.
`data`	No	The operation result when ok is true.
`error`	No	A human-readable error when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+      "properties": {
+        "deleted": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "deleted"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "A human-readable error when ok is false.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether noticed completed the operation.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical nuance: it removes the row outright and does NOT stamp a completion, contrasting with complete_action. This behavioral detail goes beyond the annotations and prevents misuse.

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 four sentences are concise, front-load the core action, and each serves a distinct purpose: definition, irreversibility, alternative, and ID source. No fluff or 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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary information: what it does, when to use, how to obtain the ID, and the alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema's description for action_id already includes the source (get_person → relationship.actions or list_actions). The tool description repeats this exactly without adding new semantic information, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool performs a permanent delete of an action, specifying the resource and operation. It distinguishes from complete_action by noting it's for actions that should not exist, making its purpose unambiguous even among 40+ sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (mistake, duplicate, irrelevant) and when not to (if follow-up happened, use complete_action). It also provides the source for action_id, giving complete actionable guidance.

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

All noticed tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?