Deletes a specified blueprint by UUID through the VCF Automation REST API, removing it from the blueprint service.
Deletes a blueprint DELETE /blueprint/api/blueprints/{blueprintId}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information please refer to /blueprint/api/about | |
| blueprintId | Yes | (path) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover critical behavioral traits (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). The description adds the REST endpoint structure, which is contextually useful but does not disclose new behavioral constraints or limits beyond the structured data.
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?
The definition is highly concise, front-loading the action and providing the resource identifier structure in a clear, single-line manner.
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?
While the endpoint structure is helpful, the definition is not complete for an agent making a choice between the raw API call and the wrapped onboarding function. It lacks context on why one would choose this over the other.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already details the purpose of `blueprintId` and `apiVersion`. The description merely restates the parameter's role within the URL path.
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?
The description clearly states the action (Deletes a blueprint) and provides the specific HTTP method and URL structure (DELETE /blueprint/api/blueprints/{blueprintId}), making it highly distinguishable from other potential tools.
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?
While the API route implies a specific implementation style, the description fails to distinguish when this specific tool should be used versus the similar onboarding tool, onboarding_delete_blueprint_by_id, which exists in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.