Syncretica MCP Server

delete_myth

Removes a myth record by its ID from the Syncretica catalog so outdated or incorrect mythological entries can be cleaned up.

Instructions

Delete a 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_myth"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: it does not say whether deletion is permanent or soft, whether it cascades to embedded myth/god associations, what permissions are required, or what happens when the ID does not exist. For a destructive mutation 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent knows what to pass but not what to expect on success or failure. Return behavior and irreversibility, the pieces the structured fields do not cover, are left unexplained.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as the 'Myth ID to delete' with type and range constraints, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (delete) applied to a specific resource (myth record), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the create_/get_/update_myth siblings. It stops short of differentiating scope (e.g., what a 'record' includes) or naming related tools, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as fetching the ID via list_myths/get_myth first, and no note on alternatives like update_myth when the user only wants to change a record. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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