knack_delete_recordMUTATES Knack data — permanently DELETES a record (irreversible). Knack API: DELETE /objects/{object_key}/records/{record_id}. Knack returns { delete: true } on success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recordId | Yes | The record id (a hex string returned by Knack). | |
| objectKey | Yes | The Knack object (table) key, e.g. "object_1". |
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 indicate destructiveHint: true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the deletion is permanent/irreversible, the API endpoint is shared, and the success response format is given. This provides transparency beyond the annotation, though it could mention idempotency or error cases.
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 concise: two sentences that front-load the mutating and destructive nature, followed by the API call and response format. No extraneous information, every sentence earns its place.
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 no output schema and two well-described parameters, the description covers the operation's effect, API method, and success response. It lacks mention of error conditions or permission requirements, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations (destructiveHint), it is reasonably complete.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage and clearly describes the two parameters (recordId as hex string, objectKey as table key). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full schema description coverage.
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 that the tool deletes a record permanently, using strong verbs like 'MUTATES' and 'DELETES'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., knack_create_record, knack_update_record) by specifying the irreversible nature and the API operation.
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?
The description implies usage for deleting records when permanent removal is intended, mentioning irreversibility as a caution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., soft delete or update). No exclusions or alternatives are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling list.
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 operation: CRUD for records, listing fields/objects/records, fetching application schema, and a generic request. No overlap in purpose.
All tools use 'knack_' prefix with verb_noun pattern (create_record, delete_record, etc.). The exception is 'knack_request' which lacks a verb, causing slight inconsistency.
9 tools is well-scoped for a Knack integration, covering essential CRUD, listing, schema retrieval, and an escape hatch.
Core CRUD operations are present, plus listing and schema. Missing batch operations or advanced filtering, but the generic request tool fills some gaps.