Action1 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_data_source

Destructive

Delete a data source after removing reports that depend on it, so you can clean up unused or obsolete data sources in Action1.

Instructions

Delete a data source (delete reports that use it first).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "data_source_id": "<data_source_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_data_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data_source_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description adds the non-obvious dependency that dependent reports must be removed first, which is genuine behavioral context. It omits whether the delete is reversible, required permissions, and cascade behavior.

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?

One sentence with a single embedded precondition; zero waste, and the destructive action is front-loaded before the caveat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations already cover the safety profile. Combined with the stated precondition, the definition is nearly complete, missing only permission/scope and reversibility details.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter carries no description, so the description would need to compensate but does not. The name data_source_id is largely self-explanatory and the description confirms it targets a data source, so a baseline 3 is fair.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a data source'), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools like get_data_source and list_data_sources as well as the related delete_custom_report. It does not, however, name a sibling or scope the operation further.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The parenthetical '(delete reports that use it first)' supplies a concrete precondition for successful use, which is real actionable guidance rather than implied usage. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition.

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