Remove a saved view from a project by providing the project UUID and view UUID; only the view owner or a project admin can delete it.
Delete a saved view. This requests project_id and view_id as uuid parameters. Only the view's owner or a project Admin may delete it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the view to delete | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the view |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the permission requirement and that the operation is a deletion, but it does not state whether deletion is permanent, cascading, or what response is returned. The permission detail adds useful context beyond the bare verb.
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?
Two short sentences: the first states the core action, and the second adds a critical permission constraint. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple deletion tool with two required parameters, the description covers the action, the parameters, and the authorization rule. Since there is no output schema, the absence of explicit return-value details is a minor gap, but the tool is still callable safely with the information given.
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%, so the input schema already documents project_id and view_id. The description merely restates that these are uuid parameters, adding no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a saved view.' This uniquely identifies the operation among siblings like get_view, create_view, and update_view. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.
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 clearly states the precondition for use: only the view's owner or a project Admin may delete it. This gives an agent actionable context about who can invoke the tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_view or list_project_views.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.