delete_entryRemove a logged entry entirely from GoalTrack by providing its entry_id, enabling correction of mistakes or cleanup of daily numeric goal logs.
Remove a logged entry entirely.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a destructive operation. 'Entirely' hints at irreversibility, but it does not state whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data (e.g., progress or streaks), or whether specific permissions are required. Critical safety context is missing.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a one-parameter tool, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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?
Given that this is a destructive tool with no annotations, a one-parameter schema at 0% description coverage, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description omits critical context like irreversibility and what 'entry_id' refers to.
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%, so the schema only says 'entry_id' is an integer with no explanation. The description does not mention the parameter at all, adding no meaning beyond the schema. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 ('Remove') and resource ('a logged entry'), and the adverb 'entirely' implies a hard delete as opposed to an edit. It distinguishes itself from edit_entry and log_entry by the removal action. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like delete_goal.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit_entry or delete_goal. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Remove'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.