Deletes a service by ID, removing its service record, embeddings, and image file to clean up unused resources.
Delete a service. Removes the service, its embeddings and its image file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying that embeddings and the image file are also removed, which is important cascade information for an agent.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key side effects. Every sentence carries useful information with no wasted wording.
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?
For a simple one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context to call it safely, especially the cascade effects. It could say more about irreversibility or downstream impact, but the essential information is present.
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%, and the single id parameter is documented as "Numeric id." The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Delete a service." It is immediately distinguishable from sibling deletion tools such as delete_flow, delete_faq, and delete_document because the resource is explicitly named.
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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as update_service or get_service. Usage is only implied by the verb "Delete," with no exclusions or prerequisite context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.