Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

delete_design

Destructive

Delete a design to retire it recoverably or permanently erase it, letting you remove designs with a reversible default.

Instructions

Delete a design — retire it (default, recoverable) or erase it permanently.

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": {
      "design_id": "<design_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_design"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoEcho ``design_id`` here to execute. Omit on the first call to see the confirmation prompt. Default: "".
design_idYesThe design to delete.
permanentNo``False`` (default) retires; ``True`` permanently erases. Default: false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Echo ``design_id`` here to execute. Omit on the first call to see the confirmation prompt. Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / design_id / description
      Added value: +"The design to delete."
    • changedInput schema / properties / permanent / description
      Previous value: -"Default: false."New value: +"``False`` (default) retires; ``True`` permanently erases. Default: false."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 supplied structurally. The description does add one genuinely useful nuance those flags cannot express: the default path is recoverable, while the destructive flag applies only to the permanent path. It does not mention the two-step confirm handshake, which lives solely in the schema, nor any authorization or irreversibility consequences beyond the word "permanently".

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, placing the action first and the mode distinction second. Nothing can be removed without losing information.

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?

With only three fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate for an agent to choose between retire and erase. The multi-step confirmation flow, which determines whether the call actually executes or returns a prompt, is discoverable only by reading the schema, and no alternatives within the large sibling set are pointed to.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains design_id, permanent, and the confirm echo pattern; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the permanent/default distinction in prose, but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so it lands slightly above baseline rather than demonstrating independent value.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a design") and immediately distinguishes its two modes: retire (default, recoverable) versus permanent erase. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the neighbouring operations an agent would confuse it with, such as archive_design, keep_design, or the retire_* family.

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 parenthetical "default, recoverable" implicitly steers the agent toward the safe option and reserves permanent erasure for explicit intent, which is useful mode-selection guidance. However, there is no statement about when to call this at all versus archiving or retiring a design, and no prerequisites such as ownership or confirmation requirements.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools