Skip to main content
Glama

Delete Card Builder style preset

card_builder_delete_style_preset
DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a Card Builder style preset by ID. Use only when no card or other preset extends it; does not check for dangling references.

Instructions

Permanently delete one Card Builder style preset by id.

Calls card_builder/style_presets/delete. Any card whose style data references this preset via extends_preset_id keeps that dangling id — this tool does not check for or update such references.

Use when: removing a preset that is no longer extended by any card or other preset. Returns: {"status": "deleted", "style_preset_id": ..., "result": ...} on success. Errors: on failure, returns {"status": "error", "style_preset_id": ..., "error": <exception text>} instead of raising.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
style_preset_idYesId of the preset to delete, from card_builder_list_style_presets.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.25.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / style_preset_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the preset to delete, from card_builder_list_style_presets."
  2. Addedv0.18.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantive context they cannot carry: the underlying endpoint, the fact that dangling extends_preset_id references are left intact and unchecked, the exact success payload, and the error payload shape instead of raising.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the destructive action statement, then the side-effect warning, usage condition, and return/error contracts in a compact labeled block. Slightly long for one parameter, but every sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter destructive tool, the definition covers action, scope, side effects, invocation condition, and both success and failure response shapes. Even accounting for the existing output schema and annotations, nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented with a pointer to card_builder_list_style_presets. The description only restates that deletion is keyed by id, adding no new semantics such as format or source constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete one Card Builder style preset') plus the addressing key ('by id'). The word 'permanently' and the resource naming cleanly separate it from card_builder_update_style_preset and card_builder_list_style_presets.

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 'Use when: removing a preset that is no longer extended by any card or other preset' line gives a concrete selection condition, and the dangling-reference warning reinforces it. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. update instead of delete), so it falls short of explicit when-not/alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools