headlo-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_record

Delete a record from a Headlo collection by providing the collection ID and record ID. Requires confirmation to complete the deletion.

Instructions

Delete a record

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": {
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>",
      "record_id": "<record_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "delete_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true to confirm deletion
`record_id`	Yes
`workspace_id`	No	Workspace ID — omit to use the first workspace from context
`collection_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

D1.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a record', omitting critical facts such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or the confirmation mechanism. This is a destructive operation with zero transparency about its effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but not in a good way—it is under-specified. It consists of two words that restate the tool name, providing no substantive content. This is not conciseness but a failure to convey necessary information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and is destructive. The description only covers the basic action with no context about the deletion scope, confirmation requirement, effects, or any other important behavior. It is woefully incomplete for an agent to safely invoke.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description mentions no parameters. Schema coverage is 50% (confirm and workspace_id have descriptions), but the description adds no extra meaning. The record_id and collection_id parameters remain undocumented in both the description and their own schema entries, leaving ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete a record' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'delete_record', providing no additional information. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_module' or specify any scope or target context.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended scenarios, or why one might prefer this over other deletion tools, leaving the agent without orientation.

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