PhotoForge MCP Server

delete_generation

Delete an image generation from the studio gallery using its generation ID to remove unwanted or outdated assets.

Instructions

Delete an image generation from the studio gallery.

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": {
      "generationId": "<generationId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_generation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`generationId`	Yes	ID of the generation to delete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether the image can be recovered, whether credits are refunded, or what happens on an invalid ID. 'Delete' implies destruction, but nothing beyond that implication is stated.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the space saved is not reinvested in any useful behavioral detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, yet the description omits irreversibility, recovery options, and error behavior. For a delete tool, that leaves substantial gaps an agent needs filled before calling it.

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% and there is a single required parameter already documented as 'ID of the generation to delete.' The description adds no format hints, sourcing hints (e.g., obtain from list_generations), or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an image generation from the studio gallery'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like favorite_generation or list_generations. It stops short of naming the relevant siblings or explaining scope, but the purpose itself is clear.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this versus list_generations/favorite_generation, no prerequisite confirmation step, and no note about when deletion should be avoided. An agent must infer the entire usage context.

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