Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

delete_team

Destructive

Permanently deletes a team along with its memberships and scope grants. Requires the organisation to be on Kiln Business; pass a team ID, and use an approval ID on repeat calls to confirm.

Instructions

Delete a team, its memberships, and its scope grants.

Needs the organisation to be on Kiln Business.

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": {
      "team_id": "<team_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ask_idNoThe id an earlier ``APPROVAL_REQUIRED`` answer returned. Pass it on the repeat call to learn whether the person approved; omit it on the first call.
team_idYesThe team deleted, with its memberships and scope grants.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / ask_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The id an earlier ``APPROVAL_REQUIRED`` answer returned. Pass it on the repeat call to learn whether the person approved; omit it on the first call.",
+  "title": "Ask Id",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / team_id / description
      Added value: +"The team deleted, with its memberships and scope grants."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the value here is the description disclosing the blast radius: memberships and scope grants are destroyed alongside the team itself. The plan-entitlement gate is also behavior the annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating irreversibility or the APPROVAL_REQUIRED retry pattern that the ask_id parameter hints at.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the two things structured data cannot: what is destroyed and the plan requirement. Only the return/confirmation behavior and the approval-retry flow are unaddressed, and the latter is covered by the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the two parameters, including the ask_id approval-retry semantics, are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already there, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 team') and adds the cascade scope ('its memberships, and its scope grants'), which tells an agent exactly how far the deletion reaches. It is clearly separable from remove_team_member or list_teams by the resource it operates on, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those near neighbours.

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?

'Needs the organisation to be on Kiln Business' is a genuine precondition that tells the agent when the call will fail, which is more than most tools offer. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over remove_team_member for a single membership, and no mention of any confirmation or approval flow, which the ask_id parameter implies exists.

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