dForms

Delete a folder

delete_folder

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a folder. Its forms are never deleted: they are taken out of it and stay live, with their responses. Destructive: it deletes or replaces data, so it is best confirmed with the user first, naming exactly what will change. After an error or a timeout, a read shows whether the change went through, so a blind retry is not needed.

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": {
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`folder_id`	Yes	The folder id, from list_folders.
`workspace_id`	No	The workspace this call acts in: an id from list_my_workspaces. Required for a person signed in with several workspaces and for staff of this deployment; optional with an API key or with only one workspace.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deleted`	Yes
`workspace`	Yes	The workspace this call acted in, to compare with the one the user means.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds non-obvious behavior by disclosing the cascade semantics (forms survive and remain live) and a post-error verification path. It does not state whether the folder deletion itself is permanent or recoverable, which is the remaining behavioral unknown.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then confirmation and retry guidance follow. Mild boilerplate ('it deletes or replaces data') creeps in, but nothing is redundant enough to obscure the key facts.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With rich annotations, full schema coverage and an output schema, the description only needs to supply cascade and retry semantics, which it does. It lacks a note on required permissions or irreversibility, a small but real gap for a destructive operation.

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 100%: folder_id and workspace_id are both fully documented in the schema, including the multi-workspace condition. The description adds no extra meaning about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a folder') and immediately clarifies the cascade scope: contained forms are not deleted but taken out and stay live with their responses. That scope statement lets an agent distinguish this from delete_form and delete_response without opening any schema.

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 concrete operating guidance: confirm with the user first and name exactly what will change, and after an error or timeout do a read instead of a blind retry. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. delete_form for the forms inside the folder), so the routing guidance to siblings is implied by the cascade note rather than stated.

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

All dForms tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?