delete_cardDelete a specific card from Favro, with the option to remove it from all boards.
Delete a card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card | Yes | Card ID, sequential ID (#123), or name | |
| board | No | Board ID or name (needed for name lookups) | |
| everywhere | No | If True, delete from all boards (not just current) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2v0.7.0v0.3.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / board / descriptionAdded value: +"Board ID or name (needed for name lookups)"Input schema / properties / card / descriptionAdded value: +"Card ID, sequential ID (#123), or name"Input schema / properties / everywhere / descriptionAdded value: +"If True, delete from all boards (not just current)"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that deletion is destructive/irreversible, what happens to associated data (comments, attachments), whether it requires special permissions, or how the 'everywhere' option affects scope. For a destructive mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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?
It is a single sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The sentence does not earn its place by adding any information beyond the tool name, so brevity here reflects a lack of substance.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers parameters well. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations, the description omits essential context: irreversibility, cascading effects, permission requirements, and the semantics of the 'everywhere' flag.
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 100%, so all three parameters (card, board, everywhere) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clear verb+resource ('Delete a card'), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it adds nothing beyond the tool name/title and gives no differentiation from other card-mutating siblings like update_card or move_card, making it the minimum viable statement of purpose.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., archive vs. delete), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent gets no help deciding whether this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.