Skip to main content
Glama
hofill
by hofill

delete_request

Remove a specific HTTP request from RequestRepo MCP by providing its request ID and confirmation, enabling clean management of captured web traffic.

Instructions

Delete one request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
request_idYes
confirmYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The delete_request handler implementation in RequestrepoMCPService class. It validates the confirm parameter, calls the underlying client's delete_request method, and returns a dict with the request_id and deletion status.
    def delete_request(self, *, request_id: str, confirm: bool) -> dict[str, Any]:
        self._require_confirm(confirm, "delete_request")
        deleted = self._client().delete_request(request_id)
        return {"request_id": request_id, "deleted": deleted}
  • The delete_request tool registration using @mcp.tool() decorator. This exposes the delete_request functionality to the MCP protocol, with parameters request_id and confirm defined inline.
    @mcp.tool()
    def delete_request(request_id: str, confirm: bool) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Delete one request."""
        return resolved_service.delete_request(request_id=request_id, confirm=confirm)
  • The _require_confirm helper method used by delete_request to enforce confirmation for destructive operations. Raises ValueError if confirm is not True.
    @staticmethod
    def _require_confirm(confirm: bool, action: str) -> None:
        if not confirm:
            raise ValueError(f"{action} is destructive and requires confirm=true.")
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses almost nothing about behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects related data, rate limits, or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this is critically inadequate.

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?

The description is maximally concise with just three words that directly state the tool's function. There's zero wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for such a simple statement of purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive operation with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description doesn't address critical context like deletion permanence, permissions needed, or how this differs from sibling deletion tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 2 parameters, the description provides no information about parameter meaning or usage. It doesn't explain what 'request_id' identifies, what format it should be in, or why a 'confirm' boolean is required. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Delete one request' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (request), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_all_requests' or 'remove_dns'. It specifies 'one request' which helps distinguish from batch deletion, but lacks specificity about what type of request or system 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_all_requests' for batch operations or 'remove_dns' for different resource types. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for this deletion operation.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hofill/RequestRepo-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server