delete_packageDeletes a MASV package by ID, permanently removing all its files with no undo; requires MASV_ALLOW_DELETE=true.
Delete a package by ID. This permanently removes the package and all its files and cannot be undone. Requires MASV_ALLOW_DELETE=true environment variable to be set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packageId | Yes | Id of the package to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description goes further by disclosing the exact blast radius ('all its files'), irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), and an environment-variable prerequisite that appears nowhere in structured fields.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler, leading with the action and immediately following with the destructive consequence and prerequisite. Every sentence carries information.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, consequence, irreversibility, and the auth prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.
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 single packageId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond that, so it earns the baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a package by ID') with no ambiguity. It is clearly distinguishable from read siblings like get_package and from the only other delete tool, delete_portal.
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 required MASV_ALLOW_DELETE=true prerequisite is genuinely useful usage context. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives or any caveats about which package IDs are valid, leaving usage largely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.