Delete a node (irreversible).
Args: node_id: Node ID (e.g., ND-123-456-789).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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?
Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds 'irreversible', which goes slightly beyond the annotation by indicating permanence, but it does not mention side effects on related resources or whether confirmation is required. This is acceptable but not highly detailed.
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 compact, consisting of a clear action line and a parameter line with an example. Every word serves a purpose, and the irreversibility warning is front-loaded before the args.
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?
Given the tool is a simple delete operation with one parameter, the description covers the essential details: the action, irreversibility, and the parameter format. The annotations and output schema fill in the safety and response-handling aspects, so the description is sufficiently complete for its complexity.
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 input schema only defines node_id as a string with no further description. The description compensates by providing a concrete example format 'ND-123-456-789', which helps clarify what a valid Node ID looks like. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a valuable addition.
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 starts with 'Delete a node (irreversible)', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_project, update_node, and get_node, and the irreversibility warning adds important semantic scope.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_node or delete_project. The description states what it does but not when it should be chosen, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
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 distinct resource and action: nodes, projects, docs, pricing, status, org, faucet, and contact. There is no overlap between list/get, create/update/delete, or the doc search vs fetch tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_node, get_project, list_nodes, update_node, delete_project). Underscore separator and lowercase are used throughout with no mixed conventions.
At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct purpose within the platform's domain. The count is appropriate for a platform with project, node, documentation, pricing, status, and faucet features.
The tool set provides full CRUD for both projects and nodes, plus deployment options, pricing, docs search/retrieval, platform status, organization info, testnet faucet, and a contact channel. There are no obvious dead ends for the workflows the server advertises.
