Skip to main content
Glama
IBazylchuk

Paparats: Local Semantic Code Search

by IBazylchuk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete Architecture Cards

arch_delete
Idempotent

Hard-delete architecture cards by ID to clean up obsolete entries from refactors, removed features, or old payload schemas; deletion is permanent with no undo or audit trail.

Instructions

Hard-delete one or more arch cards by id. No undo, no audit trail — the cards are gone from Qdrant. Use for: cleaning up obsolete cards left over from a refactor, dropping cards for a removed feature, migrating away from old payload schemas. Idempotent: ids that no longer exist are reported in notFound but do not fail the call. Always re-fetch ids via arch_context immediately before calling — ids from earlier in the conversation may point to cards that have since been re-upserted (a re-upsert allocates a fresh UUID), so deleting by a stale id will silently miss the intended card and could wipe a now-current one if the id was reassigned. Prefer supersedes on arch_record_decision when you have a replacement decision; use arch_delete only when there is no replacement.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesCard ids to delete. Idempotent: ids that no longer exist are reported in `notFound` but do not fail the call.
groupYesGroup the cards live in.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds critical context beyond them: no undo, no audit trail, cards are removed from Qdrant, stale ids can silently miss or wipe now-current cards after re-upserts, and missing ids are reported in `notFound` without failing. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and the most important warning (no undo, no audit trail). The remaining sentences each add distinct operational value: use cases, idempotency behavior, stale-id risk, and the preferred alternative.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers safety profile, return behavior via `notFound`, id lifecycle risks, required pre-call workflow, and the alternative tool. Nothing material is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaningful id semantics beyond the schema: stale ids may point to re-upserted cards with fresh UUIDs and should be refreshed via `arch_context`, and deletion by a reassigned id could wipe a current card. The `group` parameter is left to the schema, which fully documents it.

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?

The description opens with a precise verb and resource: hard-delete one or more arch cards by id. It clearly distinguishes the operation from related sibling tools by naming `arch_context` for re-fetching ids and `arch_record_decision` for replacement-based workflows.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit use cases (obsolete cards, removed features, payload migrations) and an explicit when-not/alternative: prefer `supersedes` on `arch_record_decision` when a replacement exists. It also mandates re-fetching ids via `arch_context` immediately before calling, which is a concrete operational guideline.

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