Delete a specific clipboard history entry by its ID to remove unwanted copied items from the clipboard history.
Delete a specific entry from clipboard history by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Cliphist entry ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds that the deletion is targeted to a single entry rather than the whole history, but says nothing about irreversibility or what happens when the ID does not exist.
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?
One short sentence with the resource and the keying mechanism front-loaded; there is no filler and nothing to trim.
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?
A destructive one-parameter tool whose annotations cover the danger signal, so the description is close to sufficient. It still leaves out where IDs come from and the outcome on unknown IDs, which an agent needs for correct invocation.
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% and the single id parameter is documented as a 'Cliphist entry ID to delete'. The description's 'by ID' phrasing adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description names a specific verb (delete) and resource (a single clipboard-history entry) scoped by ID, so it is unambiguous what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the adjacent siblings clear_clipboard_history or paste_from_history, leaving that inference to the agent.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus clear_clipboard_history (remove everything) or how to obtain a valid ID (list_clipboard_history). The agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.