Delete specified findings from an analysis after refresh_analysis shows them solved; if any ID is unknown, nothing is deleted.
Delete findings by id, typically once refresh_analysis shows them solved. If any id is unknown, nothing is deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| analysis_id | Yes | Id of the analysis, as returned by create_analysis or list_analyses. | |
| finding_ids | Yes | Ids of the findings to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious transactional trait: 'If any id is unknown, nothing is deleted' (all-or-nothing atomicity). However, it never states that deletion is permanent/irreversible or what permissions are required, so the destructive profile is only partially covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the primary action front-loaded and the atomicity caveat as a tight trailing clause. Nothing redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity, no-output-schema two-param tool this is close to sufficient, and the atomicity note is valuable. But with no annotations the description should also say the deletion is irreversible and whether it is a hard or soft delete — an agent cannot infer that from the structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both required params (analysis_id, finding_ids) are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, ID-format, or batch-limit detail beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Delete findings by id') and the sibling-set context (findings vs. explanations/analysis) makes the target clear. It is distinguishable from delete_analysis and delete_explanations without opening a schema, though it does not explicitly name the boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides real workflow context: 'typically once refresh_analysis shows them solved,' which names a sibling tool and the condition that motivates the call. No explicit when-not guidance or alternatives are given, so it stops short of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.