Skip to main content
Glama
roman-zaglauer

OctoBot MCP Server

by roman-zaglauer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_data_file

Permanently remove a historical data file from OctoBot. Requires explicit confirmation to prevent irreversible data loss; deletion cannot be undone.

Instructions

Permanently delete a historical data file. Confirm-gated (ADR-0003/FR-25).

Deliberately gated, reversed from this addendum's original not-gated draft -- see the tool spec/requirements doc FR-25 for the full reasoning: unlike cancel_order/close_position (instantly correctable), an erroneous delete means re-running a collection that can take minutes to hours, placing this closer to clear_*_history's risk profile. If confirm is not exactly true, no OctoBot call is made at all -- this returns require_confirmation's structured refusal (a normal return, not an error).

Once confirmed, maps to POST /data_collector?action_type= delete_data_file with the raw file string as the JSON body (confirmed against source AND live this session: flask.request. get_json()'s raw value is passed straight through to backtesting_api.delete_data_file(file_name), no wrapping object).

Output on success: {"file": str, "deleted": true, "message": str} (OctoBot's own confirmed live success body: f"{file} deleted").

Errors: DataFileDeleteRejectedError wrapping OctoBot's own f"Can't delete {file_name} ({error})" text -- confirmed verbatim live this session for a nonexistent file ("Can't delete does_not_exist.data (file can't be found)").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
confirmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses the permanent destructive nature, the confirm-gated behavior, the structured refusal when confirm is not true, the exact HTTP mapping, the JSON body format, the success response, and the error wrapper with a verbatim example.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the essential purpose and gating behavior, and it is well-structured across intent, behavior, success output, and errors. It is somewhat verbose with provenance details like 'reversed from this addendum's original not-gated draft' that are not needed for tool invocation, but this is a minor deduction given the complexity of the destructive behavior.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers preconditions, confirmation semantics, endpoint mechanics, success return shape, and error behavior. An agent could safely understand and invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains that confirm must be exactly true to execute and otherwise returns a structured refusal, and that file is passed raw as the JSON body rather than inside a wrapping object.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a historical data file.' This is immediately unambiguous and clearly distinguishes the tool from history-clearing and order-cancellation siblings by naming the risk profile it shares with clear_*_history.

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 provides a clear risk comparison with cancel_order/close_position and clear_*_history, explaining when this destructive action is warranted versus the instantly-correctable operations. It does not give an explicit 'use this when...' rule, but the context and exclusions are reasonably clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools