eLabFTW MCP

delete_step

Remove a step from an eLabFTW experiment, item, template, or item type. Requires step write scope and returns status='deleted'.

Instructions

Delete a step from an eLabFTW experiment, item, experiment template or item type. WRITE OPERATION — requires the step write scope. Returns status='deleted'.

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": {
      "entity_type": "<entity_type>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "step_id": "<step_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_step"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`step_id`	Yes
`entity_type`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: it is an explicit WRITE OPERATION, it requires a specific write scope, and it returns status='deleted'. It omits irreversibility/cascade behavior and idempotency, but the mutation and auth posture are stated.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the operation class and return value. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the write/auth posture. However, for a 3-required-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the ambiguous id vs step_id semantics leave a real gap an agent could trip over.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: the four entity types map loosely to entity_type, but it never clarifies the distinction between id and step_id, both of which are required integers. Two of the three parameters remain unexplained in both schema and prose.

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?

Names a precise verb (delete) and resource (step) and scopes it to four eLabFTW entity types, which cleanly separates it from update_step, toggle_step, add_step and list_steps by intent. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

States a prerequisite (requires the step write scope), which is useful context, but gives no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like toggle_step or update_step, and no conditions under which deletion should be avoided. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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