Deletes a single IaaS request by ID via the request tracker, enabling removal of a specific tracked request when it is no longer needed.
Delete Request Delete a single Request DELETE /iaas/api/request-tracker/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the request. (path) | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information refer to /iaas/api/about |
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 description's only added value is the raw HTTP path. It says nothing about what is removed, whether related request graph/event data is affected, or whether the deletion is permanent or soft.
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 ('Delete Request' and 'Delete a single Request') restate the same thing and the endpoint line repeats the annotation title verbatim. Front-loaded and harmless, yet at least one sentence is redundant.
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 single-ID destructive delete whose annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency, and with a fully described schema, the essentials are present. What's missing is domain context — what a 'Request' is here (a tracked IaaS request) and whether deleting it also removes its graph/event history.
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% and both parameters (id, apiVersion) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the {id} path placeholder and adds no syntax, format, or versioning nuance beyond that, so the baseline 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 ('Delete a single Request') plus the underlying endpoint DELETE /iaas/api/request-tracker/{id}, which tells an agent exactly what object is affected. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling read tools (iaas_get_request_tracker, iaas_get_request_trackers), though the delete verb makes that largely self-evident.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no caution about when deletion is inappropriate. The agent must infer from the name and endpoint that it removes a request-tracker entry rather than any other kind of request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.