V.I.S.O.R.

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_context_feedback

Remove one explicit feedback record from the current workspace to clear outdated feedback and keep stored context accurate.

Instructions

Delete one explicit feedback record from the current workspace.

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": {
      "feedback_id": "<feedback_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_context_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feedback_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.4.2Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and it discloses almost nothing beyond the verb. It does not say whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens when feedback_id is unknown, or whether special permissions are needed for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in behavioral and parameter detail rather than reflecting deliberate minimalism.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, one undocumented parameter, and several sibling tools, the description is thin. The output schema covers return values, but irreversibility, id sourcing, and the choice against clear_context_feedback are all missing.

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

Parameters2/5

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 and it barely does — it only implies that feedback_id identifies a feedback record. It gives no format, no indication of where the id comes from, and no example, leaving the single required parameter under-explained.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Delete one explicit feedback record') and a scope ('from the current workspace'), which is far better than a tautology. The word 'one' hints at single-record scope versus the sibling clear_context_feedback, but that sibling is never named, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'one explicit feedback record' suggests removing a single item, contrasting implicitly with clear_context_feedback, but the description never says when to choose this over that sibling. No prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the id from list_context_feedback) are mentioned.

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