Deletes an alternate key from a Dataverse table by specifying entity and key logical names. Currently disabled for safety.
Delete an alternate key from a Dataverse table (currently disabled for safety)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_logical_name | Yes | Logical name of the alternate key to delete | |
| entity_logical_name | Yes | Logical name of the entity |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes the tool is 'currently disabled,' which is a valuable behavioral disclosure, but for a destructive mutation tool it says nothing about irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to dependent records when an alternative key is removed.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action. The parenthetical is efficiently placed. Slightly underspecified rather than bloated.
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?
A destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to carry more of the burden: irreversibility, permissions, prerequisite lookups. The 'disabled' note is the one piece of essential behavior it does include, leaving several gaps.
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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax, format, or naming-convention detail beyond what the schema provides. 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?
Specific verb (delete) + resource (alternate key) + platform (Dataverse table), which distinguishes it from sibling delete_attribute and from add_entity_key. The parenthetical '(currently disabled for safety)' adds a meaningful operational qualifier.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no routing to alternatives (e.g., list_entity_keys to find key names before deletion). The 'disabled for safety' note implies the tool won't work, which is critical context, but it doesn't explain under what conditions one would attempt this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.