Remove a saved scoring system by ID to clean up outdated configurations and keep your quality screening workflow organized.
Delete a saved scoring system.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| system_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Delete'. It doesn't state that deletion is permanent, what side effects may occur, or why the idempotentHint might matter.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with 'Delete', and no wasted words. This is appropriately concise for a simple single-parameter delete operation.
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?
The description plus annotations cover the core safety profile for a low-complexity, one-parameter operation with no output schema. However, it omits any statement about postconditions, error behavior, or how to source the system_id, making it only minimally viable.
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%, and the description does not explain system_id beyond the schema's title. It doesn't say how to find the system_id or that it must reference an existing saved scoring system, leaving the agent without useful parameter-level guidance.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a saved scoring system'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also naturally distinguishes this from sibling tools like systems_create, systems_update, systems_apply, and systems_show.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of irreversibility, and no indication that system_id should come from systems_list or systems_show. An agent gets no context about preconditions or caution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.