Delete a named data set from a flow to clean up test data. Specify the flow ID and data set name.
Remove a named flow-data dataset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| flowId | Yes | ||
| project | No | Path to the project root (same folder the side panel connects to). Defaults to the EASYSPEC_PROJECT environment variable if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It only says 'remove' without indicating permanence, side effects, or whether the dataset is deleted from disk or just unlinked. This lacks critical transparency for a destructive operation.
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, clear sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easily readable, achieving high conciseness.
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?
The description covers only the basic action and omits critical context such as prerequisites, expected effects, or failure modes. With no output schema or annotations, this leaves the agent under-informed for a destructive operation.
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?
The description mentions 'named' which hints that the 'name' parameter identifies the dataset, but the 'flowId' parameter is not explained. Since the schema coverage is only 33% (only 'project' has a description), the tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the action ('remove') and the target resource ('flow-data dataset'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like remove_scenario_dataset, though the resource type is specific enough to avoid major confusion.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.