Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bevel MCP

Bevel MCP

by JoshPopov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete a Bevel food log

bevel_delete_food_log
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a logged food entry by ID and date using soft delete, with optional dry-run before writing changes.

Instructions

Deletes a logged food the way the app does (soft delete: deletedAt is set on the same entry). Requires BEVEL_ENABLE_WRITES=true unless dryRun is set.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "bevel_delete_food_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFood log id from bevel_get_food_logs.
dateYesThe day the food is logged on (YYYY-MM-DD).
dryRunNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not obligated to restate danger. It still adds real value beyond them: the delete is soft (deletedAt is set on the same entry), and the call is gated behind a write-enable flag unless dryRun is used.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value facts (what is deleted, how, and the write gate). Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers effect semantics, preconditions and idempotency-adjacent behavior. Minor gaps remain: what a dry run actually returns, and whether the supplied date must match the entry's logged date.

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?

The schema documents id and date; dryRun has no schema description, and the description only partially fills that gap by implying it substitutes for the write flag without saying it suppresses the deletion. No added meaning for id/date beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Deletes a logged food") and adds the mechanism the app uses (soft delete setting deletedAt). Clear enough to separate it from bevel_log_food and bevel_update_food_log, but it never names a sibling or explicitly delimits against them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives an important precondition (BEVEL_ENABLE_WRITES=true unless dryRun is set), which tells an agent when the call will fail. However it offers no guidance on when to delete versus update/correct a log, or on when to prefer a dry run first.

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