Skip to main content
Glama

Dock

by ai.trydock

delete_workspace

Archive a workspace. Soft-delete: rows, doc body, and activity history are preserved, and the workspace can be restored from Settings · Archived. Every member loses access immediately. Idempotent: calling on an already-archived workspace returns its current archivedAt without changing anything. Requires editor role on the agent. Pass mode: "web" to surface a click-to-approve URL for the human (recommended for any non-trivial workspace); the first call returns { status: 'approval_required', approval_url, polling_url }; print approval_url in chat, user clicks + approves, you poll polling_url for the result. Without mode: "web" the call executes immediately on the agent's editor role.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoConsent surface. 'immediate' (default) executes on the agent's role. 'web' returns an approval_url the user clicks in a browser; recommended for any workspace your user might miss.
slugYesThe workspace slug. Accepts either the bare slug ('my-workspace') or the org-prefixed form ('my-org/my-workspace') as shown in the dashboard URL; both resolve to the same workspace.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly describes soft-delete behavior, what is preserved, immediate access loss, idempotency, role requirements, and the complete two-step approval flow with polling. This far exceeds typical descriptions.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph, but every sentence contributes critical information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands on behavior. While not as concise as a two-sentence example, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning a 4.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are somewhat specified, but the description still addresses the approval response format for web mode and idempotent behavior for already-archived workspaces. It lacks an explicit statement of the return for immediate mode, which is a minor gap given the detail otherwise provided.

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. The description adds significant value for `mode` by detailing the approval_url/polling_url flow and the difference between immediate and web consent, which the schema only hints at. It adds little for `slug` beyond the schema, but the overall enrichment justifies a 4.

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?

The description opens with 'Archive a workspace,' a specific verb+resource that immediately distinguishes it from hard-deletion tools. It further clarifies the soft-delete nature, which differentiates it from sibling tools like update_workspace or remove_workspace_member.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: archiving rather than deleting, with restore capability. It also recommends `mode: "web"` for non-trivial workspaces, giving practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Dock toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.

Resources