emptysock-mcp

save_delete

Delete a stored game save slot from disk to free storage or reset progress. Specify the slot name to remove it permanently.

Instructions

Delete a save slot from disk.

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": {
      "slot": "<slot>"
    },
    "name": "save_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slot`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation removes a save slot from persistent storage, which is useful for a destructive call, but it does not mention whether deletion is reversible, what happens when the slot does not exist, or what is returned.

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?

At seven words, every word contributes and the core action is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this one-liner is incomplete: it leaves the agent guessing about slot format, success/error signaling, and failure behavior. It is enough to understand the intent but not enough to invoke the tool with confidence in all cases.

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?

The input schema only gives 'slot' as a string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's mention of 'a save slot' weakly links the parameter to the resource, but it does not explain expected slot format, valid values, or how the slot is selected.

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 the operation explicitly: 'Delete' is a specific verb, 'save slot' is the resource, and 'from disk' adds location. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like save_read, save_write, and save_list, which perform non-deletion operations.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided; the only signal is the verb 'Delete', so usage must be inferred from intent. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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