Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Devbook MCP Server

Devbook MCP Server

by leouofa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

devbook_delete_prompt

Permanently deletes a prompt and its attachments from Devbook by ID, removing the stored prompt template and any linked files so it can no longer be queried or executed.

Instructions

Permanently delete a prompt and its attachments from Devbook

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "devbook_delete_prompt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUnique identifier of the prompt to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose two important traits: the deletion is permanent and it cascades to attachments. It says nothing about permission requirements, what happens when the id does not exist, or whether attached files are removed from storage, so meaningful gaps remain for a destructive tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, the permanence, and the cascade are all packed into ten words. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and its side effect but leaves the destructive-operation safety context thin. An agent would still be guessing about failure modes and required authority before calling it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema as a positive integer identifying the prompt. The description adds no format, constraint, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete a prompt') plus the cascade scope ('and its attachments'), which clearly distinguishes it from devbook_delete_attachment and devbook_delete_project. It does not explicitly reference siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 mention of prerequisites or required permissions, and no warning about confirming before an irreversible deletion. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the word 'Permanently'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools