delete_portalPermanently deletes a portal by ID, while uploaded packages remain accessible. Requires MASV_ALLOW_DELETE=true.
Delete a portal by ID. This permanently removes the portal and cannot be undone. Packages that were uploaded to this portal will remain accessible. Requires MASV_ALLOW_DELETE=true environment variable to be set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| portalId | Yes | Id of the portal to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint) by disclosing that deletion is permanent and irreversible, that packages uploaded to the portal remain accessible afterwards, and that an environment flag gates the operation. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.
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, front-loaded with the action and ID, then irreversibility, side effects, and the gating variable. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.
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 destructive one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers action, irreversibility, downstream side effects on packages, and the auth/environment requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% with a single required 'portalId' whose schema text already explains it. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for fully-documented parameters applies.
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 portal') plus the keying parameter ('by ID'). The resource is clearly distinct from the sibling delete_package, so an agent can disambiguate without opening either schema.
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?
Provides a concrete precondition for use — the MASV_ALLOW_DELETE=true environment variable must be set — which tells the agent when invocation will succeed. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, but the prerequisite is meaningful operational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.