InstaDeck

Delete deck

delete_deck

Destructive

Permanently removes a deck folder along with its history, presentation, and PDF after user confirmation. Cannot be undone.

Instructions

Deletes the deck folder with its history, presentation and PDF. Cannot be undone. Ask the user first and pass confirm: true.

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": {
      "deck_id": "<deck_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "delete_deck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true, after the user confirmed
`deck_id`	Yes	Deck id from create_deck or list_decks

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds context annotations cannot: the deletion is irreversible and it removes the folder along with history, presentation and PDF. It still says nothing about permissions or failure behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and destruction scope before the irreversibility and confirmation requirements. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: scope of deletion, irreversibility, and the mandatory user-confirmation gate. Minor gaps remain around error/permission behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%: confirm is documented as 'Must be true, after the user confirmed' and deck_id points back to create_deck or list_decks. The description only restates the confirm requirement, adding no syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (deletes) plus the resource and the exact scope of destruction: the deck folder with its history, presentation and PDF. This distinguishes it from sibling mutators such as revert_deck or apply_ops, which also change a deck without removing it.

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?

Gives a clear precondition and required behavior ('Ask the user first and pass confirm: true') plus the irreversibility warning that governs when this should be chosen. It does not name a recovery alternative (e.g. revert_deck) or list when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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