Remove a saved custom filter by namespace and name, deleting only the filter definition and leaving all family tree records untouched.
Delete a saved custom filter.
Deletes the filter definition only. Nothing in the tree is touched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the filter to delete. | |
| namespace | Yes | Plural namespace, e.g. 'people'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuine value beyond that by scoping the destruction: only the saved filter definition is removed and nothing in the tree is affected. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope clarification immediately following. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition is close to complete. The remaining gap is the absence of any consequence statement (permanence, recoverability, permission requirements) for what is a destructive operation.
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 both 'name' and 'namespace' documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter format, accepted namespaces, or identifier conventions beyond what the schema provides.
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 saved custom filter'), which is unambiguous and separable from siblings like create_filter and list_custom_filters. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from, so it falls short of a 5.
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 description says nothing about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor about prerequisites such as needing the filter to exist or having permission to remove it. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Delete' and the required namespace/name pair.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.