tracker_workflows_deletePermanently deletes a Yandex 360 Tracker workflow by ID and returns an acknowledgement. Use it to remove unwanted workflows; this action cannot be undone.
Delete a workflow (irreversible). Returns an acknowledgement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflow_id | Yes | Workflow id, from ``workflows_list``. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context beyond that by flagging the operation as "irreversible" and noting it returns an acknowledgement, though it omits permission requirements and any cascade effects on queues/boards referencing the workflow.
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?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and the most decision-relevant fact (irreversibility), with zero filler.
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?
For a single-parameter delete with annotations covering the safety profile and the description noting the return acknowledgement, the definition is largely complete. A brief note on permissions or downstream impact would make it fully self-sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and workflow_id is documented in the schema with a source hint (``workflows_list``). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting – baseline 3.
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+resource ("Delete a workflow") that is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling read/update tools (workflows_list, workflows_update). It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it stops 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as tracker_workflows_update or archive-style operations. The agent must infer that this is the tool for permanent removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.