Remove a Figranium automation task permanently by providing its unique taskId. Simplifies task management by allowing you to delete unwanted or completed tasks directly.
Permanently delete a Figranium task by taskId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | The unique ID of the task to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds 'permanently' which reinforces destructiveness but does not disclose idempotency behavior (though idempotentHint=true is in annotations) or side effects like cascading deletes. It provides minimal extra behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
A single, efficient sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. No filler or redundant phrases beyond the minor redundancy of 'by taskId' which is acceptable.
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 one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and target. It does not mention potential errors or prerequisites, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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 explains taskId clearly. The description's 'by taskId' is redundant and adds no semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.
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 (Figranium task), and the scope (permanently, by taskId). It distinguishes from siblings like create_task, task_update, and task_list without ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for deletion, prerequisites, or contrast with update or list operations. An agent must infer appropriate usage from the action name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.