Delete a report resource file from the reports directory. Safely does nothing if the file is missing.
Delete a file from reports/resources/. No-op if it doesn't exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | Filename (relative) of the resource to delete from reports/resources/. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the operation is a no-op if the file does not exist, which is valuable for an agent. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or any other side effects. This is adequate but not exhaustive for a destructive operation.
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 two sentences with no extraneous words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the essential no-op behavior. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear scoping, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers the action, the target directory, and the no-op behavior. Nothing critical is missing for this level of complexity.
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 input schema provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter, describing it as a relative filename. The tool description adds no extra detail about the parameter, so it does not enhance what the schema already conveys. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb (delete) and a clearly scoped resource (files in reports/resources/). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resources.add_report, resources.list_reports, and resources.export_report, as well as the generic files.delete. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 implies the tool is for deleting files within the reports/resources/ directory but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over files.delete or other alternatives. The scope is clear from the wording, but no direct guidance on alternatives or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.