Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pico-bay

pico-bay

Official
by ctrlpi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Delete a board path

pico_path_delete
Destructive

Permanently delete one file or recursively delete a directory from a selected board using its board ID and root-relative path.

Instructions

Permanently delete one file or recursively delete one directory from the selected board.

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": {
      "board_id": "<board_id>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "pico_path_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath on the board filesystem, relative to its root.
board_idYesStable board UID returned by pico_boards_list, or its current serial device path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 covered. The description adds genuine value with 'Permanently' (irreversibility) and 'recursively' for directories, but says nothing about failure modes such as a missing path or non-empty directory handling.

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; the destructive and recursive semantics are stated up front rather than 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 delete tool with full schema coverage, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it safely. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and whether the directory must be empty.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters are documented in-schema (path relative to root; board_id as UID or serial path). The description adds no format or edge-case detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete') plus the exact scope: one file, or one directory recursively. That recursion detail alone lets an agent distinguish this from sibling mutation tools like pico_path_rename or pico_file_write.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. rename/move instead of delete), and no stated prerequisites. The only implied routing signal is 'from the selected board', which weakly points at pico_boards_list for obtaining board_id.

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