Deletes a specific action run by its ID, removing it from the VCF Automation system.
Delete an action run Deletes an action run with a specific ID DELETE /abx/api/resources/action-runs/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the action run (path) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement of irreversibility, whether related runs/logs are removed, or what happens when the ID doesn't exist or the run is in progress.
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?
Very short, but the first two lines say the same thing twice ('Delete an action run' / 'Deletes an action run with a specific ID'), so nearly half the text is redundant. The HTTP route is useful for API-literate agents but is also duplicated in the annotation title.
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 one-parameter destructive call whose annotations and schema are already complete, the description is minimally sufficient. It still leaves the agent without any consequence or precondition information for an irreversible 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?
Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('ID of the action run (path)'). The description restates the same idea without adding format, source, or lookup guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.
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: 'Deletes an action run with a specific ID', which implicitly contrasts with the bulk sibling abx_delete_action_runs. It doesn't name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus abx_delete_action_runs, abx_cancel_action_run, or the get/list siblings. No prerequisites, permissions, or state conditions (e.g., whether the run must be finished) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.