hex-dashboard-mcp

delete_cell

Remove a cell from a Hex project, permanently. Confirm the cell ID and contents with get_project() first to avoid accidental deletion.

Instructions

Delete a cell from a Hex project. Use with caution — this is irreversible. Always get_project() first to confirm the cell ID and contents before deleting.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cell_id": "<cell_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_cell"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cell_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical destructive behavior: 'irreversible' and 'Use with caution.' This is significant context beyond the schema. It lacks details on permissions or impact on dependents, but the core risk is clearly communicated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The action and caution are front-loaded: 'Delete a cell from a Hex project. Use with caution — this is irreversible.' Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple delete tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It gives purpose, safety guidance, and a workflow prerequisite. It doesn't over-explain return values (output schema exists) and covers the one parameter's context adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% coverage, but the description adds meaning by telling the agent to 'confirm the cell ID' via get_project(), which indicates that cell_id should be a validated identifier. This is a useful semantic hint that the identifier must match an existing cell.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a cell from a Hex project.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_cell and update_cell_source, which are the other CRUD operations on cells.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit usage guideline: 'Always get_project() first to confirm the cell ID and contents before deleting.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and provides a necessary precondition, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server