model_providers_deleteDelete a model provider configuration by ID; fails if models are configured or the config is cluster-managed.
Deletes only the model provider config. Deletion is blocked while it has configured models. Cluster-managed provider configs cannot be deleted through this route.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | ||
| modelProviderConfigID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the deletion scope (config only), the model-dependency blocking rule, and the cluster-managed restriction, all of which affect whether the call will succeed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint (scope, model-blocking rule, cluster-managed exclusion) with no filler. Front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key operational risks (dependency blocking, cluster-managed exclusion) that annotations alone do not. It is nearly complete, missing only parameter-level detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so neither orgID nor modelProviderConfigID is documented in the schema, and the description does not compensate by explaining either parameter's meaning or format beyond the descriptive names and regex patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("Deletes ... the model provider config") and the qualifier "only" distinguishes it from models_delete by scoping exactly what is removed. An agent can separate this from model_providers_update/get/list without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives clear preconditions: deletion is blocked while configured models exist, and cluster-managed configs cannot be deleted via this route. These are explicit when-not conditions, though no alternative tool is named for those blocked cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.