Delete a saved preset configuration to remove obsolete settings from your scraping workflow. This action permanently removes the preset, though historical runs remain available.
Delete a saved preset. Runs already made from it stay in the history. A monitor that watches it starts failing until its sources are changed. Confirm with the user before deleting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| presetId | Yes | The preset's id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing downstream consequences — historical runs survive, and dependent monitors break until reconfigured. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious blast-radius information an agent needs before a destructive call.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the two side effects, and the confirmation requirement. Front-loaded with the action and 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?
With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting on consequences and preconditions, and annotations cover the safety profile. It omits what happens on an invalid/nonexistent preset id and whether deletion is recoverable, which would round it out fully.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents 'presetId'. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance for the id, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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 and resource ('Delete a saved preset') that is unambiguous and naturally distinct from the sibling preset tools (list, save, run). An agent knows immediately what the operation does without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly imposes a prerequisite — 'Confirm with the user before deleting' — which is the key usage gate for a destructive tool. It does not name alternatives (e.g., update/save a preset instead), but deletion has no real substitute, so the missing exclusion is minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.