Delete a specified field from a Redis hash. Provide the hash key and field name to remove that field, receiving a success or error message.
Delete a field from a Redis hash.
Args: name: The Redis hash key. key: The field name inside the hash.
Returns: A success message or an error message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "title": "hdelOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and a vague return message, but does not explain what happens if the field or hash does not exist, nor does it mention idempotency or side effects.
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?
The description is extremely concise with three short lines: action, args, returns. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. There is no redundant information.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no nesting) and existence of an output schema, the description covers basic functionality. However, considering the lack of annotations and the need to differentiate from many sibling tools, it could be more complete by mentioning edge cases or typical return types.
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 the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'name' is the Redis hash key and 'key' is the field name, which goes beyond the schema's bare titles. However, it does not specify types, but the schema already does that.
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 clearly states 'Delete a field from a Redis hash,' providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hget, hset, and hexists, which operate on the same data structure but with different actions.
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 offers no guidance on when to use hdel versus alternatives such as delete (entire key), srem (remove from set), or zrem (remove from sorted set). There are no preconditions or usage contexts mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.