Delete a single environment variable from an app by specifying the app ID and variable key, removing obsolete or incorrect configuration values.
Delete a single environment variable from an app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Environment variable name to delete | |
| app_id | Yes | App ID (UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether the deletion is reversible, whether the app must be redeployed for the change to take effect, or what happens if the key is absent.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.
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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present, but the description omits the consequences of deletion and any post-delete behavior an agent would want before invoking an irreversible operation.
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 100% (key = variable name, app_id = UUID), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description implies both fields ('environment variable' and 'app') but adds no format or identifier details beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 (delete) and resource (environment variable) scoped to an app, which cleanly separates it from deployado_set_env and deployado_list_env. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus set_env (which may overwrite) or list_env, and no prerequisites or cautions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.