Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Qualtrics MCP Server

Qualtrics MCP Server

by yrvelez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

delete_flow_element

Destructive

Delete a single top-level or nested flow element in a Qualtrics survey without rebuilding the flow. Requires survey ID, flow ID, and confirmation.

Instructions

Delete one top-level or nested flow element without rebuilding the rest of the flow

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": {
      "surveyId": "<surveyId>",
      "flowId": "<flowId>",
      "confirmDelete": "<confirmDelete>"
    },
    "name": "delete_flow_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowIdYesFlowID to delete
surveyIdYesThe Qualtrics survey ID
confirmDeleteYesMust be true to confirm deletion

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutability. The description adds the important behavioral detail that the rest of the flow is not rebuilt. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., references to the deleted element).

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose and key behavior with no extraneous content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-parameter tool with a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function (delete without rebuild). No critical gaps are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action (delete), the resource (flow element), and specifies it works on both top-level and nested elements without rebuilding the rest. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_survey or delete_block.

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?

The description implies use when wanting to remove a specific flow element atomically, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like update_flow_element or move_flow_element.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools