Skip to main content
Glama
Mipiti

Mipiti MCP Server

by Mipiti
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Delete Group

delete_group

Delete a tag along with its framework selections, requirement exclusions, and relevance data without affecting member models; frameworks already propagated to members remain selected.

Instructions

Delete a tag. Mutating; the member models are not affected.

The tag's framework selections, requirement exclusions and relevance data are deleted with it. Frameworks it propagated to its members stay selected on them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idYesID of the tag to delete.
server_versionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.85.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / group_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ID of the tag to delete.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / tag_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ID of the tag to delete.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "server_version",
-  "tag_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "server_version",
+  "group_id"
+]
  2. Addedv0.68.2

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely does so: it declares the operation mutating, enumerates the collateral destruction (framework selections, requirement exclusions, relevance data), and explicitly bounds the blast radius (member models unaffected; propagated frameworks stay selected). It stops short of stating irreversibility or required permissions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences with the mutation status front-loaded and the destructive/who-is-affected split handled economically. No filler, though the opening 'tag' framing costs clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description usefully covers side effects for a no-annotation mutation. But it omits any handling of the undocumented server_version parameter and any irreversibility/permission note that a destructive tool warrants.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%, so the description should compensate but adds nothing about parameters. It never mentions group_id, and server_version is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent without a value format or source for a required parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb+resource pair is muddled: the tool is delete_group and its siblings all use 'group' (get_group, create_group, add_model_to_group), yet the description says 'Delete a tag.' An agent must infer that 'tag' and 'group' are the same entity, which weakens confident selection.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from siblings such as delete_threat_model, delete_control, or delete_assertion. The agent gets no signal about when deletion is appropriate versus other cleanup paths.

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