Skip to main content
Glama

checkpoint_delete

Remove a specific checkpoint from the virtual filesystem workspace to manage storage and maintain organized session data.

Instructions

Delete a checkpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checkpoint_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function for the checkpoint_delete tool. It calls the CheckpointManager to delete the specified checkpoint and returns a CheckpointRestoreResponse indicating success.
    async def checkpoint_delete(self, checkpoint_id: str) -> CheckpointRestoreResponse:
        """
        Delete a checkpoint.
    
        Args:
            checkpoint_id: Checkpoint ID to delete
    
        Returns:
            Response with success status
        """
        await self.checkpoint_manager.delete_checkpoint(checkpoint_id)
    
        return CheckpointRestoreResponse(
            success=True,
            checkpoint_id=checkpoint_id,
            restored_at=datetime.now(UTC),
        )
  • The registration of the checkpoint_delete tool in the MCP server using the @server.tool decorator. This thin wrapper delegates to the CheckpointTools instance method.
    @server.tool
    async def checkpoint_delete(checkpoint_id: str):
        """Delete a checkpoint."""
        return await checkpoint_tools_instance.checkpoint_delete(checkpoint_id)
  • Pydantic model for the output response of the checkpoint_delete tool (reused from checkpoint restore response). Defines success status, checkpoint ID, and restore timestamp.
    class CheckpointRestoreResponse(BaseModel):
        """Response from checkpoint restore"""
    
        success: bool
        checkpoint_id: str
        restored_at: datetime
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't state whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or if there are confirmation prompts. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral details is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with just three words ('Delete a checkpoint.'), front-loading the key action and resource. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like safety warnings, return values, error conditions, or how deletion interacts with other tools (e.g., checkpoint_restore). For a mutation tool in this context, more information is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

The description doesn't mention parameters, but with only one parameter (checkpoint_id) and 0% schema description coverage, it implicitly clarifies that deletion targets a checkpoint by its ID. Since there are zero parameters described in the schema, the baseline is 4, as the description's focus on 'a checkpoint' aligns with the single required parameter without needing explicit parameter details.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a checkpoint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like checkpoint_create, checkpoint_list, and checkpoint_restore by specifying deletion rather than creation, listing, or restoration. However, it doesn't specify what a checkpoint is in this context, which could help differentiate from other deletion tools like rm or workspace_destroy.

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 an existing checkpoint), exclusions (e.g., not for workspaces), or comparisons to similar tools like rm (which might delete files) or workspace_destroy (which deletes workspaces). Without this context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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/IBM/chuk-mcp-vfs'

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