Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Fudge for Shopify

by ai.fudge
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete draft file

delete_draft_file
Destructive

Delete a theme file from a Fudge draft, or stage removal of an item by its .entities path. Fudge refuses deletions that would break references. Publishing applies the removal; until then it can be undone.

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": {
      "draft": "<draft>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "delete_draft_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesA theme file such as sections/main-product.liquid or templates/product.json, or a content document such as .entities/product/123.jsonc or .entities/page/45.body.html.
draftYesThe draft’s fudge://project/… ref.
storeNoThe connected store to use. Omit when only one is connected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true without naming what is destroyed or how; the description fills that gap by stating the operation is staged, takes effect only on publish, and is undoable before then. It also discloses a real business rule — "Fudge refuses deletions that would break references" — which no annotation conveys. It stops short of describing failure output or permission requirements.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: what it deletes, the referential-integrity guard, and the staging/undo lifecycle. The core action is front-loaded with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a destructive draft mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important agent questions: is it immediately applied, can it be reversed, and what is rejected. Minor omissions are error/failure behavior and whether the optional store parameter affects scoping, but the essential operational picture is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the path and draft parameters are already documented in detail, including the theme-file and .entities forms. The description's restatement of the dual path modes adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete a theme file from a Fudge draft") and adds a second mode ("stage removal of an item by its .entities path"), so the scope is concrete. It does not name the closest siblings (edit_draft_file, write_draft_file, read_draft_file), so the read/write/delete boundary must be inferred from the tool name rather than the description.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as edit_draft_file for modifying a file versus this tool for removing one. The only usage-adjacent signal is the staging note ("Publishing applies the removal; until then it can be undone"), which explains timing of effect but not tool selection.

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

All Fudge for Shopify toolsInspect
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