BootForm

Delete submissions

bootform_delete_submissions

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently deletes the listed submissions of one form, with their uploaded files. Irreversible: there is no trash or undo. Pass the ids you have listed (bootform_get_submissions, spam: true for the spam folder), up to 200 per call; there is no delete-by-filter. Always name the submissions and ask the person before calling. Returns deleted_ids and not_found_ids.

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>",
      "submission_ids": "<submission_ids>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "bootform_delete_submissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true. Safety gate against accidental deletion.
`form_id`	Yes	The form's id
`submission_ids`	Yes	The submission ids to delete, 1 to 200

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive, but the description adds critical behavior beyond them: deletion is permanent with no trash or undo, uploaded files are removed too, and the response returns deleted_ids and not_found_ids. It also discloses the 200-id limit and lack of filter-based deletion.

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?

The text is compact and front-loaded: permanence and irreversibility come first, followed by id sourcing, limits, human confirmation, and return fields. Every sentence carries operational value.

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?

For a destructive deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is destroyed, irreversibility, id source, batch limit, no filter mode, confirmation requirement, and return values. An agent has enough information to call it 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 schema already documents form_id, submission_ids, and confirm. The description still adds useful meaning by explaining that submission_ids must come from listed submissions and can target spam, without contradicting the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: permanently deletes listed submissions of one form, including uploaded files. It distinguishes this from listing via bootform_get_submissions and from broader form/workspace deletion siblings by scoping deletions to explicitly named submission ids.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to pass ids obtained from bootform_get_submissions, how to target spam, the 200-item cap, and that delete-by-filter is unavailable. It also requires naming the submissions and asking the person before calling, which is clear operational guidance.

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

All BootForm tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?