Delete a global source and its published version by providing the global source ID. This removes both the source and its live version from the WebCake storefront.
Delete a global source and its published version
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| global_source_id | Yes | Global source ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: deletion cascades to the published version. It stops short of stating irreversibility or any permission requirement.
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?
A single nine-word sentence with the destructive verb front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
For a one-parameter destructive tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description covers the essential cascade effect. What remains missing is modest: irreversibility/recovery and whether the target must be in a particular state.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents global_source_id. The description adds no format, naming, or ID-sourcing detail beyond what the schema already says, which is the baseline case for a fully documented single parameter.
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 (Delete) plus resource (global source) and adds scope detail that the resource's published version goes with it. This distinguishes it from get_global_source_detail / update_global_source, though it never explicitly contrasts with the similarly named delete_global_section sibling.
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 prerequisites (e.g., must the source be unpublished first?), and no reference to alternatives such as unpublishing/updating instead. The agent must infer the occasion entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.