@littlebigbrain/mcp

lbb_workflows_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a triggered workflow by name, stopping it from following its class while preserving data it wrote; deletion requires client approval and sends nothing if declined.

Instructions

Delete a triggered workflow: it stops following its class, and what it wrote stays. Deleting search.embed deletes the embedding and its vectors, so its class stops being searchable; the suggestions an ontology.fit filed stay; a developer workflow leaves its workflow instance and the facts its code wrote. Without starter it deletes a workflow with triggers by its name, and its shards stay. The server asks the person to approve it through the client (MCP form elicitation) and sends nothing when they decline (approval_declined). A client that cannot show the question gets approval_required and nothing is sent, unless the MCP server's environment sets LBB_MCP_DESTRUCTIVE=allow.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "lbb_workflows_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The triggered workflow's name.
`graph`	No	Graph to target; defaults to the connection's graph
`detail`	No	Response detail level. Defaults to compact.
`starter`	No	The starter workflow's catalog id, e.g. search.embed. Omit for a workflow with triggers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.16.0Oct 29, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

removedInput schema / properties / confirm

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The same name again, to confirm.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "confirm"
-]New value: +[
+  "name"
+]

Addedv0.14.0Oct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description specifies exactly what is deleted and what remains, including vectors, suggestions, workflow instances, and facts written by code. It also discloses the approval flow, approval_declined and approval_required outcomes, and the LBB_MCP_DESTRUCTIVE override, which is unusually rich behavioral context 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action and deletion effects, then proceeds to approval and error behavior. It is dense and occasionally run-on, but nearly every clause conveys operational detail that an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers deletion scope, data retention, starter-vs-trigger behavior, approval requirements, error outcomes, and environment override. This is complete enough for an agent to understand the consequences and failure modes before calling the tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning for the starter parameter by explaining omission behavior and trigger-based deletion. It also clarifies that name refers to a triggered workflow's name, though graph and detail semantics are left to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: deleting a triggered workflow, with clear effects on its class and written data. It is distinguishable from siblings by the delete operation, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with lbb_workflows_manage or other alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains the starter-vs-trigger distinction and gives concrete examples such as search.embed and ontology.fit, which clarifies when each deletion mode applies. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative tool for other workflow operations.

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