subfeed_delete_entity
Delete an entity.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity ID |
Delete an entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete an entity,' which reveals the core destructive action but omits any details about irreversibility, consequences, 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?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no useful information beyond the tool name, making it insufficient.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description still lacks behavioral details or return value expectations. Without annotations, more context is needed, yet only the bare minimum is present.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (id), so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the 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?
The description 'Delete an entity' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'subfeed_delete_entity'. It is clear but tautological, lacking any additional context or differentiation from sibling tools.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools, so the description offers no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a clear, distinct operation: entity CRUD, addon management, discovery, interaction, and registration. While chat, invoke, and webhook all involve communication, their descriptions clearly differentiate entity chat from public invocation and webhook payloads.
All tools share the 'subfeed_' prefix and use snake_case, with most following a verb_noun pattern (create_entity, delete_entity, list_addons). A few use bare verbs (chat, invoke, register) or noun-only (webhook), but the pattern is still recognizable and predictable.
15 tools is at the upper edge of the ideal range, but it matches the server's broad scope covering entities, addons, models, discovery, and user registration. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and none feel redundant.
The surface covers full entity lifecycle (create, get, update, delete, publish), addon management (enable, disable, list), entity discovery, and user registration. Minor gaps like an explicit unpublish or webhook management can be worked around via update_entity or standalone webhook sending.