vcf-ops-mpb-mcp

Delete design items

mpb_delete_items

Destructive

Deletes one or more requests, objects, relationships, or events from an MPB design; requires confirm: true to execute the destructive change.

Instructions

Deletes one or more requests, objects, relationships or events from a design. Requires confirm: true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "designId": "<designId>",
      "section": "<section>",
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "mpb_delete_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	Yes
`confirm`	No	Must be true to actually perform this destructive change
`section`	Yes	Design section: requests, objects, relationships or events
`designId`	Yes	MPB design UUID (see mpb_list_designs)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the section/entity scope and the confirm gate, but says nothing about irreversibility, cascade effects on dependent items, or error behavior when an id is missing.

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?

Two short sentences with the destructive scope front-loaded and the confirm requirement immediately after. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a destructive batch-delete with annotations and a largely documented schema, the definition covers what is deleted and the confirm gate adequately. Minor gaps remain around irreversibility and side effects on related items, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 75% schema coverage the schema carries most parameter meaning, and the description adds useful context by enumerating the deletable entity types that correspond to the section enum and clarifying that ids refers to those entities. The confirm requirement is restated from the schema rather than adding new meaning.

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 ("Deletes") and resource ("one or more requests, objects, relationships or events from a design"), which clearly separates it from the design-level sibling mpb_delete_designs. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. mpb_delete_designs vs this item-level delete, or upsert for updates). The batch nature ("one or more") implies a preference for bulk deletion over repeated single calls, but that is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.