Remove an API request from an Insomnia collection by its ID. Use dry run to preview the request without deleting it.
Delete a request from a collection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | When true, return the request that would be deleted without removing it. Never mutates state. | |
| requestId | Yes | ID of the request to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Input schema / properties / dryRunAdded value: +{
+ "description": "When true, return the request that would be deleted without removing it. Never mutates state.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.5.2v0.3.0v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete' and does not disclose permanence, cascading effects, authorization requirements, or what happens on success. The dryRun safety behavior appears only in the parameter schema, not in the tool description.
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?
Single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise for a simple deletion tool.
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 two-parameter schema covers the calling contract well, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out important behavioral context such as reversibility and expected return behavior. It is minimally viable but not complete 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?
Input schema description coverage is 100%, with requestId and dryRun both documented. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('request'), and scope ('from a collection'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling operations like get_request, update_request, and execute_request, which all have different verbs and resources.
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 verb 'Delete' implies the tool is for removing requests, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use instructions or alternatives. There is no mention that update_request should be used for modifications or that this operation is destructive, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.