Delete stored captures by session, project, or age; a required filter prevents accidental bulk removal and keeps history clean.
Delete captures by age/session/project (filter required).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | No | ||
| project_root | No | ||
| older_than_sec | No | Delete captures older than this many seconds. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful non-schema constraint that a filter is mandatory, but says nothing about irreversibility, scope of deletion, or whether results are recoverable — expected additions for a destructive purge.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the destructive verb and the resource, with the critical constraint tucked in parentheses. Nothing is wasted.
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 destructive tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the essential precondition but omits return information and the consequence of an over-broad filter. Combined with annotations that carry the destructive hint, it is adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is only 33%, with just older_than_sec documented, so the description must compensate. 'by age/session/project' maps loosely onto older_than_sec, session_id and project_root, giving each filter a conceptual meaning, but it does not clarify whether filters combine as AND/OR or what a missing filter means.
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 (Delete) and resource (captures) plus the three filtering dimensions (age/session/project), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling read tools like capture_list and capture_search. It stops short of naming a specific alternative, so it sits at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.
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?
The parenthetical '(filter required)' is real usage guidance — it tells the agent a precondition that the schema does not enforce (0 required parameters). However, there is no when-to-use versus capture_get/memory_delete guidance and no indication of what happens if a filter is omitted despite the warning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.