delete_secretRemove a secret binding from a Cloudflare Worker and deploy a new version without it, so any code that reads the secret returns undefined.
Delete one secret binding from a Worker. This creates and deploys a new version without the secret, so code reading it will see undefined.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the secret binding to delete | |
| script_name | Yes | The name of the Worker script |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description still adds real value: deletion triggers a new version deployment and causes runtime code reading the secret to see undefined. That side-effect disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of noting reversibility (a prior version could be restored via rollback_worker) or failure behavior for a nonexistent secret.
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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence immediately after. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.
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 two-parameter destructive mutation with full schema coverage and complete annotation hints, the description covers the essential unknown: that a new version is deployed as a side effect. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when the binding does not exist and whether rollback is the recovery path.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (script_name, name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, casing, or resolution detail beyond that, 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete one secret binding from a Worker') with scope limited to a single binding, which cleanly separates it from delete_worker, list_secrets, and set_secrets. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the resource-level specificity makes selection unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus set_secrets (e.g., overwriting with an empty value) or whether the Worker must exist first. Usage is only implied by the verb, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.