Skip to main content
Glama
ianderso

gramps-evidence-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

delete_object

Destructive

Permanently remove a Gramps family-tree object by handle or gramps_id, cleaning up all references. Use carry_to when the object solely holds notes or images that must be preserved.

Instructions

Permanently delete an object from the tree by handle or gramps_id.

DESTRUCTIVE. The server also removes every reference to it. Refused when it is the only holder of a note or image (pass carry_to to move them), and for a source with citations, which the server would delete with it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesHandle or gramps_id of the object to delete.
carry_toNoAnother object of the same type to receive the notes and images that only this one holds. Without it, such a delete is refused.
object_typeYesType to delete: 'person', 'family', 'event', 'place', 'source', 'citation', 'repository', 'media', 'note', 'tag'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / carry_to
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Another object of the same type to receive the notes and images that only this one holds. Without it, such a delete is refused."
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare destructive=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing cascading behavior ('the server also removes every reference to it') and two specific refusal conditions with the carry_to workaround. Those are exactly the side effects an agent must know before invoking a destructive delete.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and identifier forms, then a one-word DESTRUCTIVE flag, then the exception cases. Every sentence carries non-redundant information; nothing is padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description still covers the destructive semantics, cascade scope, and failure modes, which is sufficient for a 3-param delete tool. It omits what the tool returns on success and whether the action is recoverable (e.g., undo_transaction), leaving a minor gap.

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 100%, so target/object_type/carry_to are already documented in the schema. The description restates carry_to's purpose ('pass carry_to to move them') but adds no format, default, or syntactic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete an object from the tree') plus the identifier forms (handle or gramps_id), and the word 'Permanently' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling detach_object/uncite. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete preconditions and the alternative path: refused when the object is the only holder of a note/image, in which case 'pass carry_to to move them', and refused for a source with citations. That is clear when-it-works guidance, though it does not explicitly route to sibling tools like detach_object or merge_objects.

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