FC 26 MCP

by INSANE0777

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

le_delete_db_row

Delete a database row by specifying the table name and the row object to remove.

Instructions

Delete a database row.

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": {
      "table": "<table>",
      "row": "<row>"
    },
    "name": "le_delete_db_row"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`row`	Yes
`table`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.29Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'Delete a database row' without disclosing important behavioral traits such as permanence, permission requirements, cascade effects, or reversibility. With no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to understand implications.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks the detail needed to be effective. It does not front-load key information or use structure to aid understanding.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a deletion operation with an object parameter and no output schema, the description is vastly incomplete. It fails to explain how to identify the row (e.g., by ID), error scenarios, or any post-deletion effects.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Both parameters (table as string, row as object) have no descriptions in the schema, and the tool description adds no meaning about their expected format or semantics. For the object parameter, this is a critical omission.

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 the resource 'database row', making the primary action unambiguous. However, it lacks specificity about the database context or row identification, which could be clearer.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like le_insert_db_row or le_edit_db_field. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or appropriate contexts for deletion.

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