Skip to main content
Glama
SAKURAfan1023

Scholar Library

preview_deletion

Read-only

Preview the impact of deleting a work and its linked indexes, and identify which hybrid research artifacts become stale while originals, exports, backups, and provider data are retained.

Instructions

预览删除文献及关联索引的影响;混合研究产物标记过期,输入原件、旧导出、备份和服务商数据保留。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: mixed research artifacts are marked stale, while originals, old exports, backups, and provider data are retained. This consequence-disclosure is genuinely useful and not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by consequence and retention details. It is a single dense sentence with no filler, though the trailing retention list is somewhat list-like rather than prose.

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?

With no output schema and read-only annotations, the definition provides enough context to call it (what is affected, what is preserved). The main gap is the unexplained work_id format, but the impact-preview contract itself is well communicated.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required work_id parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not: it references '文献' (work) only loosely and gives no format, identifier type, or example for work_id. The one parameter remains semantically opaque.

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 states a specific verb (预览/preview) and resource (删除文献及关联索引/deleting a work and its associated indexes), which is precisely separable from the sibling delete_work that performs the actual deletion. An agent can tell it is an impact-assessment preview rather than the destructive operation itself without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The framing strongly implies this should be run before delete_work, but the description never explicitly states when to use it, when not to, or names the delete_work alternative. Usage is left to inference rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.