Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Workato Dev MCP

Workato Dev MCP

by gmunro-lyft
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

delete_data_table_row

Delete a specific record from a Workato Data Table by record ID. Confirm with the user first—this action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete a Data Table record by record_id (record API). Get record_id from query_data_table ($record_id). Cannot be undone — confirm with the user first.

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": {
      "table_id": "<table_id>",
      "record_id": "<record_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_data_table_row"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
table_idYes
record_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly warns that the deletion cannot be undone and advises confirming with the user first. This is critical behavioral information for a destructive operation and is clearly stated.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides essential context (how to get record_id and a warning). There is no wasted wording.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive delete tool with two simple required parameters, the description covers the purpose, the prerequisite, and the irreversibility warning. No output schema is provided, but for this type of tool the description is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for record_id by explaining how to obtain it, but table_id is left unexplained beyond its self-evident name. This is partial compensation only.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action (Delete), the specific resource (Data Table record), and the method (by record_id, record API). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like query_data_table, add_data_table_row, and update_data_table_row.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear prerequisite guidance: get record_id from query_data_table. It implies the tool is for deleting a single record but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with update_data_table_row. Still, the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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