Axcel MCP

Delete history item

axcel_history_delete

Destructive

Deletes a specific Axcel history item after explicit confirmation; this action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete a history item on Axcel (cannot be undone).

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "axcel_history_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true: confirms the user asked for this (it uses the Axcel plan or deletes data).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's '(cannot be undone)' reinforces the destructiveness but adds no information beyond the annotations, and says nothing about auth, scope of deletion, or side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive caveat parenthetically attached; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but structure and economy are good.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and a required confirm flag, the description omits the confirmation requirement, the identity of the target, and any recovery caveat. An agent has enough to know it is destructive but not enough to call it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%: the required 'id' parameter has no description anywhere, and the description text never mentions either parameter. It does not compensate for the gap by explaining what a valid id looks like or why 'confirm' is mandatory.

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 (history item) on a named product, which cleanly separates it from axcel_history_list and axcel_history_get. It does not explicitly name those siblings or scope what a 'history item' is, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as axcel_history_get or axcel_library_delete. The intended use must be inferred entirely from the name and the word 'Delete'.

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