Skip to main content
Glama

delete_path

Destructive

Delete a remote file or directory from a registered, authorized online device. device_id identifies the target; path is the item to remove; recursive defaults to true for directory trees. Destructive, potentially irreversible. Inspect file_info or list_files and confirm before use.

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": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "delete_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
device_idYes
recursiveNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds beyond that by flagging potential irreversibility and the authorization requirement implied by 'registered, authorized online device.' It does not, however, describe error behavior or what happens to partially deleted trees.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then parameters, then the destructive warning and prerequisite. Every sentence carries information; no padding.

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 3-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers target identification, parameter semantics, irreversibility, authorization context, and a pre-flight inspection step. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully: device_id identifies the target, path is the item to remove, and recursive is explained as applying to directory trees with a default of true. That adds semantic meaning the bare schema titles lack.

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 (delete) and resource (remote file or directory) plus scope (registered, authorized online device), which cleanly separates it from siblings such as move_path, create_directory, and write_file. There is no competing delete tool, so no sibling confusion remains.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to inspect via file_info or list_files and confirm before use, naming the sibling tools to consult first. This is a clear when/when-not plus a prerequisite, not merely implied usage.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources