Syncretica MCP Server

delete_god

Removes a deity and its linked myth record by ID, keeping the mythological catalog accurate and free of outdated entities.

Instructions

Delete a deity and its associated myth record.

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": "delete_god"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	God ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one key trait beyond the name: the deletion cascades to the associated myth record. However, it does not say whether the operation is irreversible, what happens to related join data (populate_god_myth), or what permissions/confirmation are needed for a destructive call.

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 sentence with zero filler, and the cascade consequence is front-loaded in the same clause as the action. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and its cascade but omits irreversibility, error behavior for invalid IDs, and return information. It is adequate to start a call but not fully complete for a delete operation.

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 documented as "God ID to delete", so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond it, which is the baseline expectation for a one-parameter tool.

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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource pair ("Delete a deity") and adds the important detail that an associated myth record is removed too. The resource noun distinguishes it from delete_myth and delete_pantheon, but no explicit sibling differentiation is stated.

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 delete_myth (which may be the right call if only the myth should go) or update_god. No prerequisites, confirmation requirements, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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