zyta-sign-mcp

Eliminar área

kairo_delete_studio_area

Delete a studio area to remove it from the study, leaving associated documents unassigned. Requires write permission.

Instructions

Elimina un área del estudio. Los documentos quedan sin área. Requiere scope 'write'.

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": {
      "studioId": "<studioId>",
      "areaId": "<areaId>"
    },
    "name": "kairo_delete_studio_area"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`studioId`	Yes
`areaId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It reveals that deleting an area does not cascade deletion to documents ('Los documentos quedan sin área') and requires 'write' scope. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the action name.

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 very concise with two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. It avoids extraneous information but could benefit from a more structured listing of parameters or triggers.

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 low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description covers purpose and a key behavioral trait. However, missing parameter descriptions and usage guidelines limit completeness. Adequate for a simple tool but with gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The tool description adds no meaning to the two required parameters (studioId, areaId). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Elimina' (Delete) and the resource 'área del estudio' (studio area). It also mentions a side effect: documents become area-less. This differentiates it from siblings like kairo_create_studio_area or kairo_update_studio_area.

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 mentions required scope 'write', which provides authorization context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage is implied by the name and purpose.

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

Deploy Server