Skip to main content
Glama

mu

by mu.micro

Delete docs

docs_delete
Destructive

Delete one of your documents, by id

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesDocument id, from docs_list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / collection
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Collection name",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Record id to delete. Must be yours"New value: +"Document id, from docs_list"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "collection",
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals the destructive nature. The description adds the nuance that only 'your documents' can be deleted, which is useful context. However, it does not elaborate on irreversibility or post-deletion effects beyond what the annotation implies.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and to the point. Every word contributes to the meaning—'delete' is the action, 'your documents' defines scope, and 'by id' specifies the identifier. No waste or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple delete operation with one parameter and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is adequately complete. It clearly identifies the resource and method, and the schema supplies the id source. No need to explain return values or additional side effects given the simplicity and existing annotations.

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?

The input schema already provides a complete description for the id parameter ('Document id, from docs_list') with 100% coverage. The description's 'by id' adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 tool's purpose: 'Delete one of your documents, by id' - it contains a specific verb (delete), resource (documents), scope (one of your documents), and the method (by id). It is distinct from sibling tools like docs_list, docs_read, and docs_write.

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 usage for deleting a specific document owned by the user, with the id obtained from docs_list (as noted in the schema). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the id.

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

All mu toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool is prefixed with a clear domain (e.g., apps_, blog_, transit_), and the suffix identifies a distinct action or resource. Overlapping tools like archive_search and news_search are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools consistently use a domain_prefix_suffix pattern, but the suffix is sometimes a verb (create, list, search) and sometimes a noun (inbox, status, address). This minor mixing prevents a perfect score but remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 113 tools, the count is far beyond the typical well-scoped range, even for a broad personal assistant. While each tool is distinct and serves a purpose, the sheer number is overwhelming and could be better organized into separate domain-specific servers.

Completeness4/5

Each domain has near-complete lifecycle coverage, including CRUD and search where relevant, with only minor gaps such as missing apps_delete or events_update. The wide range of covered domains itself demonstrates strong completeness for a general assistant.

Resources