TestGraph

Delete a user-owned review

delete_experience

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete one review only after the authenticated user explicitly requests deletion. Ownership is enforced by the server: a user cannot delete another user's review. Dependent AI assessments are deleted with the review. The subject is deleted only when it was created by the same user, has no remaining reviews and has no subject relationships; otherwise it is preserved. Do not ask for a second confirmation when the current user request already explicitly authorises deletion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes
`confirm_deletion`	Yes
`delete_orphan_subject`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 30, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / version_check

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Required live deployment token. Call get_server_info immediately before this write and pass write_version_token unchanged. Stale or missing tokens are rejected before any write occurs.",
-  "maxLength": 64,
-  "minLength": 64,
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "confirm_deletion",
-  "idempotency_key",
-  "version_check"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "confirm_deletion",
+  "idempotency_key"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / version_check

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required live deployment token. Call get_server_info immediately before this write and pass write_version_token unchanged. Stale or missing tokens are rejected before any write occurs.",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "minLength": 64,
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "confirm_deletion",
-  "idempotency_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "confirm_deletion",
+  "idempotency_key",
+  "version_check"
+]

First observedAug 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial context: permanence, server-enforced ownership, cascading deletion of dependent AI assessments, conditional subject deletion, and confirmation policy. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense but every sentence carries operational weight: permanence, ownership, cascading effects, subject preservation conditions, and no double confirmation. It is front-loaded with the most important constraint and has no fluff.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: authorization, ownership, cascading deletion, and conditional side effects. It leaves minor gaps around idempotency_key behavior and error/response handling, but the overall picture is strong.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It makes confirm_deletion meaningful through 'explicitly requests deletion' and explains the orphan-subject condition, but it never maps these to the actual parameter names, omits the idempotency_key semantics, and does not state what happens if confirm_deletion is false.

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 precise action and resource: 'Permanently delete one review' with a clear user-ownership constraint. It differentiates from siblings like save_experience and set_review_visibility by emphasizing permanent deletion of a single review.

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 explicitly states when deletion is appropriate: only after the authenticated user explicitly requests it, and it instructs not to ask for a second confirmation when authorization is already explicit. It also clarifies that users cannot delete others' reviews, though it does not name alternative tools or edge cases where deletion should be refused.

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

All TestGraph tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools cluster into clear functional families — classification, location, reviews, deliberations, and system — and potentially overlapping operations are explicitly cross-referenced (e.g., enrich_subject vs correct_subject_fact, affirm vs propose reclassification). The main hazard is the resolve_subject / resolve_subject_type / resolve_subject_hierarchy trio, whose near-identical prefixes could mislead an agent at first glance despite well-written descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The surface is dominated by a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with stable verb families: get_*, list_*, resolve_*, set_*, save_*, create_*, register_*, and submit_*. Minor deviations — bare-verb fetch and search, and the noun-led vocabulary_index — break the pattern slightly but do not obscure it.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is heavy and above the preferred range, and the classification family alone accounts for ten tools with substantially duplicated vocabulary guidance. The count is partially earned, however, because the server genuinely spans several subsystems — reviews, subject classification, location assertions, deliberations, and governance — each with its own lifecycle.

Completeness4/5

Each subsystem has thorough lifecycle coverage: deliberations (create/claim/contribute/get/list/resolution), reviews (save/fetch/delete/list/visibility), location (assert/list/resolve), and classification (propose/affirm/reopen/relationships/aliases). Minor gaps include no way to edit review content, no direct list-all-subjects endpoint, and no retirement path for fields or aliases.

Resources

Need Help?