Signavio MCP Server

signavio_delete_dictionary_entry

Remove a dictionary entry from SAP Signavio Process Manager by specifying its ID to maintain accurate business process terminology.

Instructions

Delete a dictionary entry

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": {
      "entryId": "<entryId>"
    },
    "name": "signavio_delete_dictionary_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entryId`	Yes	The dictionary entry ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.0Feb 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and resource. There is no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as authentication requirements, deletion consequences, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about usage and outcomes.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'entryId' documented as 'The dictionary entry ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a dictionary entry' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('dictionary entry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'signavio_delete_folder' or 'signavio_update_dictionary_entry' beyond the resource type, missing explicit distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when deletion is appropriate versus updating, or refer to sibling tools like 'signavio_update_dictionary_entry' for modifications instead of deletion.

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