delete_plotMove a kept plot to Trash so it can be restored for 30 days before permanent removal; use this to retire plots without immediate deletion.
Move a kept plot to the Trash.
It can be restored with restore_plot until its deleted_after date, 30 days on,
and is then removed for good. Nothing through this server deletes a plot at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plot_id | Yes | A plot id from list_plots or save_plot. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial qualifier that the destruction is deferred and reversible: a 30-day retention window via `deleted_after`, restoration through restore_plot, and permanent removal only afterward. That reframes a 'destructive' mutation as a recoverable one, which is exactly the context an agent needs before calling it.
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 sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and scope before the retention/recovery detail. Every clause — trash, restoration path, 30 days, no immediate deletion — carries distinct operational meaning.
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 mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the full safety picture: what gets changed, how to undo it, and the time limit. An agent can decide and call correctly without any additional information.
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 100% and plot_id is documented in the schema as coming from list_plots or save_plot, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. It adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Move a kept plot to the Trash') and immediately disambiguates the misleading tool name delete_plot by clarifying this is a recoverable soft delete, not an immediate removal. The word 'kept' signals it applies only to non-deleted plots, separating it from restore_plot at the opposite end of the lifecycle.
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?
Gives clear usage context: this is the trash operation, and the recovery path is restore_plot within the 30-day window. It does not state an explicit when-not (e.g. behavior if the plot is already trashed) or name a hard-delete alternative, since none exists — but it does say 'Nothing through this server deletes a plot at once,' which closes the loop on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.