betterpost_delete_contentDelete a piece of content and its hosted images.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contentId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Your saved BetterPost token from a prior call (demo `bp_demo_…` or paid `bp_live_…`). Reuse the same token on every call and across conversations; omit only on the very first call to be issued a free demo token. Paid users may instead pass the key in the server URL (?key=…) or an Authorization: Bearer header.",
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that hosted images are also deleted, which is a key behavioral trait not captured by annotations. There is no contradiction. The description could be improved by noting any recovery limitations.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes an important side effect. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.
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, destructive tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the primary effect and side effect. It lacks mention of whether the deletion is reversible or any confirmation step, but the output schema likely addresses return values. The description is minimally 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter 'contentId'. The tool description does not describe the parameter beyond implying it identifies the content. No format, source, or example is provided, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the parameter name and schema pattern.
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 action 'Delete' and the resource 'a piece of content and its hosted images'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like betterpost_delete_project by specifying it is content-specific, and adds valuable context about associated images being deleted.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., betterpost_delete_project for projects), nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. The side effect of deleting hosted images is stated but not framed as a usage consideration.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose—project management, source and story handling, content generation, settings, and usage—with no overlapping functionality. The descriptions clearly delineate when to use each tool.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'betterpost_<verb>_<noun>', making the set predictable and easy to navigate. The naming convention is uniform throughout.
With 23 tools, the server covers a comprehensive content generation workflow without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a necessary function, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of project management, source acquisition, story curation, content generation/derivation, and settings configuration. There are no obvious gaps that would cause an agent to fail in typical use cases.