Delete a document from a JayDB or JayDB Cloud database by its key, with optional ETag optimistic locking to prevent conflicts.
Delete a document from JayDB or JayDB Cloud
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The document path key to delete | |
| ifMatch | No | Expected ETag for optimistic locking guard | |
| namespace | No | Namespace name (defaults to JAYDB_NAMESPACE or "default") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description never states that deletion is permanent/irreversible, what happens when the key does not exist, whether a failed optimistic-locking (ifMatch) guard aborts the operation, or any error behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler words, front-loaded with the operative verb 'Delete.' It is disciplined and scannable, though the brevity is partly a consequence of under-specification rather than deliberate compression.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description alone must make the tool safely callable, and it does not. It omits return-value/confirmation behavior, missing-key semantics, the effect of supplying ifMatch, and any cloud-vs-local differences hinted at by 'JayDB or JayDB Cloud.' An agent can invoke it correctly at a basic level, but cannot predict the consequences of edge cases.
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 each parameter (key, ifMatch, namespace) already has an inline description in the schema, including the default resolution for namespace. The tool description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies: the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description neither helps nor hurts.
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 states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Delete a document from JayDB or JayDB Cloud.' The verb 'Delete' alone cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools (jaydb_get, jaydb_put, jaydb_list, jaydb_health) without opening any schemas. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the operation class is unambiguous, so it clears the bar for purpose clarity.
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 tool versus jaydb_put (which can overwrite/delete in some stores) or jaydb_get, and no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the optional ifMatch pattern for guarded deletes. The description is purely definitional and leaves the decision of when to delete to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.