dForms

Delete responses

delete_responses

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete several responses of one form for good, with their answers. There is no undo. Ids of another form or workspace are left alone; deleted counts the ones removed. 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. Say how many responses and of which form when you ask.

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": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>",
      "response_ids": "<response_ids>"
    },
    "name": "delete_responses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`form_id`	Yes	The form id, from list_forms or get_form.
`response_ids`	Yes	The responses to delete, 1 to 100, from list_responses.
`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
`deleted`	Yes
`form_id`	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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value the annotations cannot: irreversibility ('There is no undo'), silent skipping of ids from another form or workspace, and the `deleted` count meaning partial success. The one redundant sentence restating 'Destructive: it deletes or replaces data' is what keeps this from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the irreversible scope statement, then the cross-form behavior, then the confirmation and retry guidance. Tight overall; the only wasted sentence is the one paraphrasing the destructive annotation.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and full schema description coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing layer: irreversibility, partial-deletion semantics, and error-timeout recovery. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: response_ids from a different form or workspace are ignored rather than rejected, and the returned `deleted` count reflects only what was actually removed. That partial-success behavior is not expressible in the parameter schema.

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 with scope qualifiers: 'Delete several responses of one form for good, with their answers.' The word 'several' plus the single-form scoping distinguishes it from the singular delete_response sibling without needing to open either 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 pre-call practice ('best confirmed with the user first, naming exactly what will change. Say how many responses and of which form when you ask') and a post-error procedure (do a read rather than a blind retry). It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to delete_response for a single id or to list_responses for selection, so a small inference remains.

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?