Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
opa-mcp-server

opa-mcp-server

by OrygnsCode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete OPA policy

opa_delete_policy
Destructive

Remove a policy from a running OPA server by specifying its ID.

Instructions

Delete a policy by ID from the running OPA server.

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>"
    },
    "name": "opa_delete_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPolicy ID to delete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.13
  2. Removedv0.1.5
  3. Addedv0.1.2
  4. Removedv0.1.1
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, making the delete behavior clear. The description adds minimal extra context ('from the running OPA server') but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word is necessary and clear.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention error handling (e.g., policy not found) or that deletion is permanent, which would raise completeness to 5.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with 'Policy ID to delete.' in the parameter description. The tool description adds no further meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action 'Delete', the resource 'a policy', and specificity 'by ID from the running OPA server'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opa_get_policy or opa_delete_data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., opa_put_policy to update) or prerequisites like ensuring the policy exists. The description only states the action without contextual usage advice.

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