Permanently delete a scheme and all associated nodes using its scheme ID or default environment value. Use this irreversible action to remove outdated automations and their data.
Delete a scheme and all its nodes. This action is irreversible!
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scheme_id | No | The unique ID of the scheme to delete (uses MCP_SCHEME_ID env if not provided) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two traits that matter most for a destructive tool: cascading removal of all child nodes and irreversibility. It stops short of permissions, behavior when the scheme is missing, or what the call returns.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its blast radius, followed by the irreversibility warning. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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 tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed and the durability of the effect. Only minor gaps remain: error behavior for an unknown scheme_id and any permission requirements.
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 coverage is 100% and the single scheme_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the MCP_SCHEME_ID env fallback, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema states.
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?
Specific verb+resource ("Delete a scheme") with the important scope detail that all its nodes go with it. This clearly separates it from scheme_update/scheme_get/scheme_export among the siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the irreversible warning signals 'use with care,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer node_delete or scheme_update instead, and no prerequisite/confirmation guidance. The agent must infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.