Delete team extensions by UUID to remove unused add-ons from your team library. Extensions used by running profiles will return when those profiles stop.
Delete team extensions by UUID.
Extensions in use by a running profile come back once that profile stops.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuids | Yes | Extension UUIDs to delete (e.g. 'abc123@2.0.12') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a non-obvious and important side effect: extensions in use by a running profile come back once that profile stops. This is meaningful transparency, though it doesn't mention permissions, irreversibility, or failure modes.
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 concise sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded before the important behavioral caveat. No filler or redundant phrasing.
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 simple single-parameter delete operation with an output schema present, the description covers the core action and the critical lifecycle caveat. It lacks explicit notes on permissions or broader operational context, but the essential information for calling correctly is provided.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the 'uuids' parameter with an example format ('abc123@2.0.12'). The tool description only repeats 'by UUID' and adds no new semantic nuance 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 clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('team extensions'), and the method ('by UUID'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling read/list tools like octo_get_extensions, and the scope 'team extensions' adds precision.
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or exclude any conditions. However, the note about extensions returning after a running profile stops implies a key consideration for use, so usage context is partially conveyed rather than fully absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.