glpi_delete_ticket_validationDelete a GLPI ticket validation request by ID with a required audit reason. Use it to remove outdated or incorrect validation approvals.
Remove a validation request by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | Why this item is being deleted (audit trail, required) | |
| validationId | Yes | Item ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this operation destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent. The description adds no further behavioral context such as permission requirements, permanence of deletion, or the mandatory audit reason, so it contributes little beyond the structured safety hints.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete tool and wastes no words.
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?
With annotations covering the destructive/idempotent profile, a full input schema, and an output schema, the description is adequate for correct selection and invocation. It omits mention of the required audit reason, but the schema already enforces and explains that requirement.
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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters, including the required audit reason. The description adds only 'by ID', which does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter detail.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a validation request by ID.' It clearly identifies what is deleted and that an ID is required. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its create/update/list ticket-validation siblings, but the resource is specific enough to be understood.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not mention when to delete a validation request versus updating or listing validations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.