Permanently delete a scout and all its associated data. This action is irreversible, ensuring complete removal from the system.
Permanently delete a scout and all its data. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scout_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.3.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Input for operations on a specific scout."Input schema / properties / scout_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"The scout's unique identifier (UUID)"Input schema / titlePrevious value: -"ScoutIdInput"New value: +"delete_scoutArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "title": "delete_scoutOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set destructiveHint=true. Description adds 'cannot be undone' but doesn't provide further behavioral details like permissions or side effects.
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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Highly efficient.
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 simple delete tool with output schema, the description covers the core action and consequence. Could mention how to obtain scout_id, but not critical.
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 has 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain the scout_id parameter or its format, leaving it ambiguous for the agent.
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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and resource 'scout', emphasizing permanence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_scout and edit_scout.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or precautions. The description only states the action and its irreversibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yutori-ai/yutori-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server