delete_source_fileRemove one file from the site's editable source tree. The served dist is unchanged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| path | Yes | Source-relative path to delete. | |
| siteId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| siteId | Yes | ||
| existed | Yes | True if the file was present and removed; false if it didn't exist (no-op). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / request_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description's added value is explaining the exact blast radius: only the editable source tree is affected, and the served dist is unchanged. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps an agent understand consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and the key scoping caveat are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Annotations and the output schema cover safety and return-value concerns, and the description clarifies scope. However, the meaning of 'name' and 'siteId' remains unclear, and the description does not explain how deletion interacts with future deploys or other source-tree operations, leaving a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only 'path' described. The description itself does not explain the optional 'name' and 'siteId' parameters or how they relate to the operation, so the agent is left without enough guidance on the full parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and names a precise resource ('one file from the site's editable source tree'). It also distinguishes this tool from deployment-affecting operations by explicitly stating that the served dist is unchanged, which separates it from sibling tools like delete_site or deploy-related actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: this tool edits the source tree rather than the served output. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.