Remove a stored entry by group and key. Use this action when you need to delete specific data, with access limited to the owner or an administrator.
Delete one storage entry (only its owner or an administrator can).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| group | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds useful authorization context by stating only the owner or an administrator can delete, which is behavioral information beyond what annotations provide. It could additionally mention irreversibility or side effects, but the destructive hint plus permission note make this solid.
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 that states the action and the key permission constraint without unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, making it appropriately concise.
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?
Given the tool is simple (two string parameters, no output schema) and annotations already flag it as destructive, the description is close to adequate. The main gap is that it doesn't explain the two parameters, and it offers no return-value or error expectations. It provides enough for a basic call but is not fully self-sufficient.
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 0%, so the description must explain what 'group' and 'key' mean and how they relate to the storage entry. It does not do this. The phrase 'one storage entry' only weakly implies that key identifies the entry and group might be a container, but this is left to inference rather than explicitly documented.
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: 'Delete one storage entry', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_storage, write_storage, delete_bulk, and delete_relation. The singular 'one' also differentiates it from bulk delete operations. The permission qualifier adds additional scope without confusing the core purpose.
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 purpose itself implies usage: use this when you need to delete a single storage entry. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related alternatives like delete_entity, write_storage, or admin_delete, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the owner/admin constraint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.