Skip to main content
Glama
aptro

Superset MCP Integration

by aptro

superset_chart_delete

Remove charts from Apache Superset using the Superset MCP Integration server. This permanent deletion action helps manage visualization clutter by eliminating unwanted charts.

Instructions

Delete a chart

Makes a request to the /api/v1/chart/{id} DELETE endpoint to remove a chart. This operation is permanent and cannot be undone.

Args: chart_id: ID of the chart to delete

Returns: A dictionary with deletion confirmation message

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chart_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • main.py:718-739 (handler)
    The main handler function for the 'superset_chart_delete' tool. It uses the make_api_request helper to send a DELETE request to the Superset /api/v1/chart/{chart_id} endpoint, handling the response and providing a success message.
    @mcp.tool()
    @requires_auth
    @handle_api_errors
    async def superset_chart_delete(ctx: Context, chart_id: int) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Delete a chart
    
        Makes a request to the /api/v1/chart/{id} DELETE endpoint to remove a chart.
        This operation is permanent and cannot be undone.
    
        Args:
            chart_id: ID of the chart to delete
    
        Returns:
            A dictionary with deletion confirmation message
        """
        response = await make_api_request(ctx, "delete", f"/api/v1/chart/{chart_id}")
    
        if not response.get("error"):
            return {"message": f"Chart {chart_id} deleted successfully"}
    
        return response
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the API endpoint ('/api/v1/chart/{id} DELETE'), warns that the operation is 'permanent and cannot be undone', and describes the return value. This covers key aspects like destructiveness and response format, though it lacks details on permissions or error handling.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by endpoint details, warnings, and parameter/return explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job: it explains the action, endpoint, permanence, parameter, and return value. It could be more complete by addressing authentication needs or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter), it's largely sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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 clearly explains the single parameter 'chart_id' as 'ID of the chart to delete', adding essential meaning beyond the schema's basic type (integer). However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., where to obtain the ID) or validation rules, leaving minor gaps.

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 description clearly states the action ('Delete a chart') and specifies the resource ('a chart'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'superset_dashboard_delete' or 'superset_tag_delete' beyond the chart focus, which prevents a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing chart_id from 'superset_chart_get_by_id' or 'superset_chart_list'), nor does it contrast with other deletion tools like 'superset_dashboard_delete'. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aptro/superset-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server