Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kernl

kernl

by fastslack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kernel_agents_delete

Soft-delete an agent by setting it inactive (active=0) while preserving its full history, so you can remove it from use without losing data.

Instructions

Soft-delete an agent (sets active=0, preserves history)

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "kernel_agents_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAgent ID
__caller_agent_idNo[internal] injected by the agent executor when this tool is invoked from an agent run. Not meant to be set by external callers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 does deliver the two most important facts: the operation is a soft delete, and it sets active=0 while preserving history. It is silent on permission requirements, idempotency for an already-inactive agent, and side effects on dependent objects such as triggers or subscriptions.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with a parenthetical that earns its place by disambiguating soft from hard deletion. Zero filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description should say what comes back and whether the agent's related triggers, flows, or subscriptions are affected. For a deletion tool in a system with many dependent objects, that omission is a real gap, though the core state change is well covered.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the internal __caller_agent_id. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the id, so the schema does the work and baseline 3 applies.

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?

'Soft-delete an agent' is a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical distinguishes it from a hard delete by naming the exact state change (active=0) and that history survives. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the soft/hard distinction alone lets an agent tell it apart from the create/list family.

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 only implied: 'soft-delete' plus 'preserves history' signals this is for deactivating rather than purging an agent, which is decision-relevant. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use, and no explicit alternative tool are stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools