Delete API request history logs after explicit confirmation, optionally removing only entries older than a specified number of seconds.
Delete logs from history table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm history deletion | |
| olderThanSeconds | No | Optionally clear logs older than boundary seconds |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so removals score against a lower bar. The description names the deletion target but does not disclose the critical behavioral fact that omitting olderThanSeconds wipes the entire history, nor whether deletion is recoverable.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently written, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming of a richer statement.
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 destructive, irreversible-looking operation with no output schema, the description never clarifies the blast radius (all history vs. time-bounded), what happens on confirm=false, or whether anything is returned. Annotations signal danger but not the scope needed to invoke safely.
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 confirm and olderThanSeconds semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no interpretation of its own, which is acceptable at baseline 3 given the schema carries the load.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete logs from history table'), which is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like history_list and history_get. It stops short of differentiating itself from history_export or clarifying the scope of what counts as a 'log'.
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 guidance on when to call this versus history_list/history_get/history_export, and no mention of a recommended backup step before destructive clearing. The caller must infer that this is the pruning operation rather than an archive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.