Paperform

Delete item

delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete an item or record. Confirm with the user before calling this.

By type: • workflow — with its versions and run history. • submission, partial_submission — PERMANENT: no undo, no copy kept. Use it for data-erasure requests. • product, coupon, form_webhook, document_webhook — the record is removed; what relied on it stops. Forms, documents and @platform folders are not deleted here.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	An id exactly as search, list or fetch returned it. Ids are opaque — never build or edit one.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`deleted`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description discloses important behavioral consequences: workflows lose versions and run history, submissions are permanent with no undo or copy, and dependent records stop working after deletion. It also adds a required user-confirmation step, which materially affects invocation behavior.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and confirmation requirement, then uses a compact type-based breakdown. Every sentence and bullet adds useful scope or consequence information without redundancy.

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 delete tool, it covers confirmation requirements, type-specific effects, irreversibility, dependent impacts, and exclusions. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated, and the remaining schema is fully documented.

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% and the single id parameter is already well documented in the schema as opaque and not to be constructed manually. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Delete an item or record') and breaks deletion down by concrete type, including workflows, submissions, products, coupons, and webhooks. It also clarifies scope by excluding forms, documents, and @platform folders, so an agent can distinguish this from other removal-like siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context: confirm with the user before calling, and use this for data-erasure requests where permanent deletion is intended. It also lists exclusions. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as cancel_document or unpublish, so sibling routing is implied rather than fully specified.

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

All Paperform tools Inspect

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

Need Help?