Deletes a view from a specified SemaphoreUI project using the project ID and view ID. Remove outdated or unused views to keep project dashboards organized.
Delete a view.
Args: project_id: ID of the project view_id: ID of the view to delete
Returns: Empty dict on success
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'delete' implies destruction, it does not mention irreversibility, permissions required, or error states (e.g., if view does not exist). The return value is specified, but behavioral traits are insufficiently disclosed.
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?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose, clear bullet-style parameter descriptions, and explicit return value. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two required integer parameters, no nested objects, output schema indicating empty dict), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know to invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by describing each parameter as 'ID of the project' and 'ID of the view to delete', which goes beyond the type-only schema. This adequately compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'view', making the purpose obvious. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like create_view and update_view, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_view or archive. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.