Clink MCP Server

delete_checkpoint

Remove a checkpoint from a milestone in Clink MCP Server when it's no longer needed, ensuring dependencies remain intact and completed items are preserved.

Instructions

Delete a checkpoint from a milestone. Cannot delete completed checkpoints or checkpoints that others depend on.

    Args:
        milestone_id: The milestone ID
        order: The checkpoint order number (1-based) to delete

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": {
      "milestone_id": "<milestone_id>",
      "order": "<order>"
    },
    "name": "delete_checkpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`milestone_id`	Yes
`order`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jan 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions constraints on deletion (completed/dependent checkpoints), which is valuable, but fails to address critical aspects like permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, error handling, or what the output schema returns. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and constraints, followed by parameter explanations in a structured format. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the parameter section could be more integrated into the main text rather than as a separate block, slightly affecting flow.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with constraints), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and constraints but misses behavioral details like auth needs or error cases, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'milestone_id' is clarified as 'The milestone ID', and 'order' is specified as 'The checkpoint order number (1-based) to delete'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by explaining what each parameter represents, though it doesn't detail format or validation rules.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete a checkpoint from a milestone') and specifies the resource ('checkpoint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_checkpoint' or 'complete_checkpoint' beyond the deletion action itself, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description provides implied usage guidance by stating constraints ('Cannot delete completed checkpoints or checkpoints that others depend on'), which helps determine when NOT to use it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., what to do if a checkpoint is completed) or comparisons to siblings like 'update_checkpoint', leaving some ambiguity.

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