Delete a product from DefectDojo using its product ID, removing it from the vulnerability management platform.
Delete a product.
Args: product_id: The product ID to delete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Delete' signals a destructive mutation, but the description says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or whether deleting a product cascades to child resources such as engagements and findings — the most important risk for a destructive tool in this hierarchy.
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?
The description is very short and front-loads the operation, with no wasted prose. The 'Args:' block is boilerplate but harmless, and the whole thing is easily scanned.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive, unannotated delete, the description omits cascade behavior, irreversibility, and prerequisites, leaving an agent without the information needed to invoke it safely.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it only restates the parameter name ('The product ID to delete') without adding type, format, or source context (e.g., whether it comes from list_products/get_product). Minimal value beyond the schema.
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 a product'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling delete tools (delete_engagement, delete_user, delete_test, delete_risk_acceptance), but the resource is clear enough that an agent can route to it.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions. It does not warn that this is irreversible, does not mention whether dependent engagements/findings must be removed first, and does not point to any related tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.