Syncretica MCP Server

delete_pantheon

Deletes a specified pantheon by ID, removing its associated deities and myths to keep catalog data consistent.

Instructions

Delete a pantheon and its cascaded deities and myths.

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_pantheon"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Pantheon 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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important non-obvious behavior that child deities and myths are removed as a cascade, which is genuinely valuable. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or effects on related artifacts like clusters or reports.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the cascade side effect is front-loaded rather than 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 destructive, cascading delete with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important surprise (child deletion) but omits irreversibility and blast radius beyond gods and myths. Adequate as a minimum, but it leaves real gaps for an agent about to destroy data.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage stating 'Pantheon ID to delete', so the schema already conveys its meaning. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.

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) and resource (pantheon), and adds the key scope fact that deaths cascade to deities and myths. It is distinguishable from delete_god and delete_myth by resource name, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as deleting individual gods or myths instead of the whole pantheon. The only guidance is implied by the resource name.

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