meah_cleanup_workspaceDelete the isolated workspace directory of a finished external worker while keeping its record, freeing disk space without losing agent metadata.
Delete the isolated workspace directory of a finished worker. The worker record itself is kept.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workerId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds valuable specifics beyond them: exactly what is destroyed (the isolated workspace directory) and what survives (the worker record). It stops short of stating irreversibility or any permission requirements.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and immediately followed by the non-obvious retention detail. No filler.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description covers purpose, scope of destruction and what persists. A note on permanence/irreversibility would close the remaining gap.
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% and the description never mentions workerId, so nothing is added beyond the schema's type/constraint fields. The single parameter is largely self-explanatory from its name, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.
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?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (the isolated workspace directory of a finished worker), and adds scope precision by noting the worker record itself is retained. None of the siblings (list/get/run/delegate/cancel agents) overlap with cleanup, so an agent can select it unambiguously.
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?
"of a finished worker" implies the precondition (worker is done, workspace no longer needed), which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases where the whole worker should be removed rather than just its workspace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.