Deletes a saved test suite from your postmcp workspace by suite ID, requiring an exact name match and explicit confirmation to prevent accidental removal.
Delete a saved test suite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm deletion | |
| suiteId | Yes | Database ID of the suite to delete | |
| expectedSuiteName | Yes | Must exactly match the saved suite name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that, which fits the reduced bar, but it also omits any note that the suite's contents are irrecoverably removed, so it leaves no added value over the annotations.
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 no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short, though the brevity comes at the cost of any operational detail.
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?
The schema fully specifies the confirmation and name-matching requirements, so an agent can call the tool correctly from structured data alone. However, for an irreversible destructive operation, the description says nothing about what is lost or what the caller should verify, leaving a meaningful gap.
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 coverage is 100%: suiteId, expectedSuiteName, and confirm are all documented in the schema, including the exact-match and must-be-true semantics. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a saved test suite'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as suite_save, suite_load, suite_list, or test_run_suite, but the verb is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.
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 use this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no warning about the destructive outcome beyond the bare verb. The agent must infer everything about timing and risk from the single word 'Delete'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.