Delete a managed database on Vultr by providing its ID or label to terminate and remove it from your infrastructure.
Delete a managed database.
Args: database_id: The database ID or label (e.g., "my-mysql-db" or UUID)
Returns: Status message confirming deletion
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that it returns a status message, but does not mention the destructive nature (irreversible), potential impact on associated resources (like backups or replicas), or whether confirmation is required. Deleting a managed database is a significant action that warrants more transparency.
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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by clear sections for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to scan. It is not overly verbose.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but it is destructive and has no annotations. The output schema exists, which partially covers return value expectationsholistically, but the description lacks details about side effects, prerequisites, and idempotency. For a simple tool, it's adequate but could be more complete for a high-risk 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?
The schema provides only the parameter name and type with no description (0% coverage). The description adds valuable context by stating the parameter can be a database ID or label, and gives an example (e.g., 'my-mysql-db' or UUID). This helps the agent understand what to pass, which is not evident from the schema alone.
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 the action ('Delete a managed database') and identifies the resource ('managed database'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like db_delete_logical_database or db_delete_user. Although it doesn't explicitly name these siblings, the phrase 'managed database' is specific enough to avoid confusion with other delete operations.
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 makes it clear when to use this tool (when deleting a managed database), but it does not provide any guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't note that deleting a logical database or a user should use different tools. Given the large list of siblings, some exclusionary guidance would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.