workflow-atlas

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_sheet

Remove a workflow sheet by ID, using base revision or force to prevent concurrent edit conflicts.

Instructions

Delete ONE workflow sheet by id (pass baseRev/force as in save_sheet to guard against a concurrent human edit). Persists.

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": {
      "sheet": "<sheet>"
    },
    "name": "delete_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No
`sheet`	Yes
`baseRev`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the persistence of the deletion ('Persists.') and hints at concurrency safety, but omits details like required permissions, irreversibility confirmation, or effects on related data. Adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides critical usage context. Every part earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a simple deletion tool. It covers parameters, persistence, and concurrency guard. It could elaborate on side effects or error scenarios, but it is complete enough for typical usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to two out of three parameters ('baseRev' and 'force') by referencing 'save_sheet' and the concurrency guard purpose. The 'sheet' parameter is implied as the ID by the phrase 'by id', but not explicitly documented. Partially compensates for missing 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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('workflow sheet'), and scoping ('by id'). It distinguishes from related operations by referencing 'save_sheet' for the concurrency guard. This is a specific verb+resource combination with no ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly mentions passing 'baseRev' and 'force' parameters as a guard against concurrent human edits, guiding when to use them. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the naming and brevity make the context clear.

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