abliteration-mcp

Deletions summary

get_deletions_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarize 24 months of Hugging Face model deletions: totals, deletion rate, average lifespan, monthly losses, and top-10 casualties to track catalog attrition.

Instructions

Aggregate of the 24-month Hugging Face deletion analysis (GET /models/historical-deletions/summary): total seen, total deleted, deletion rate, average lifespan, monthly losses, top-10 casualties. Cost: 20 credits.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_deletions_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds a concrete cost (20 credits) and enumerates the returned metrics, which helps an agent judge whether the call is worth it. It does not mention rate limits or freshness of the 24-month window.

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 compact sentence front-loads the aggregate and then lists metrics and cost. The parenthetical endpoint is slightly redundant but useful for debugging; nothing is bloated.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-param, read-only aggregate tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what content to expect (seen, deleted, rate, lifespan, monthly losses, top-10) and the cost. The absence of output schema makes the metric enumeration the right substitute.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter prose, and the endpoint path is the only input-like detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (aggregate) and resource (24-month Hugging Face deletion analysis), lists the exact metrics returned, and includes the underlying endpoint. Distinguishes it from the sibling list_deletions and get_timeline by making clear it is a pre-computed summary.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by 'Aggregate ... summary' versus the sibling list_deletions (raw records) and get_timeline (temporal view). It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of list_deletions when you want counts', so it falls short of naming the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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

Deploy Server