Cactal

Delete a collection

cms_collections_delete

Destructive

Soft-deletes the collection, making it and all of its items unreachable through the API; the slug becomes reusable. Refused with a conflict while any reference field in another collection targets this collection — delete those fields first. If the website has a published version, the deletion is validated against the published site’s content queries and rejected when the site still depends on the collection.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "collectionId": "<collectionId>"
    },
    "name": "cms_collections_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`collectionId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses that the delete is soft (slug reusable, data presumably retained), the two distinct refusal conditions (cross-collection reference fields, published-site content-query dependencies), and the ordering requirement. This is exactly the failure-mode context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct load: effect, reference-field conflict, published-site validation. The primary consequence is front-loaded before the preconditions.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the outcome, the reversibility implication, and both blocking conditions. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single required collectionId is undocumented in the schema, but the description makes clear the argument identifies the collection being removed, so the meaning is inferable. No format, lookup, or ID-source guidance is added.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Soft-deletes the collection') and immediately states the concrete effect: items become unreachable via the API and the slug is freed. This distinguishes it unambiguously from cms_collections_update and cms_collections_create without needing their schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit preconditions rather than alternatives: reference fields targeting the collection must be deleted first, and dependent published-site queries block deletion. It doesn't name a sibling to use instead (e.g., cms_fields_delete for the reference fields), but the when-you-may-call guidance is concrete and actionable.

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

All Cactal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?