tie-mcp-server

delete_widget

Deletes a widget instance from a dashboard by providing the dashboard ID and widget ID.

Instructions

Delete widget instance.

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": {
      "dashboardId": "<dashboardId>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_widget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Path parameter: id
`dashboardId`	Yes	Path parameter: dashboardId

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete widget instance,' which is the basic action. It does not reveal if deletion is irreversible, whether it cascades to related data, or if special permissions are required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (three words). While it is front-loaded and to the point, it lacks any structure or expansion. It is not verbose, but it could benefit from additional sentences to improve usefulness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is idempotent, what happens if the widget does not exist, or any error conditions. Slightly more context would improve completeness.

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% (both parameters have descriptions like 'Path parameter: id'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete widget instance' clearly specifies the action (delete) and the resource (widget instance). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_widget, update_widget, and get_widget. However, it lacks any additional context about the widget's role or scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or conditions under which deletion is appropriate. Sibling tools include many other delete operations, but no differentiation is offered.

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

Deploy Server