Tokenrip

Delete artifact

artifact_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Move an artifact to the trash for 30 days: reads then answer DELETED with the dates, and the alias stays held. Standalone: the owner or a platform admin. Workspace artifacts: editors, with why; expectedWorkspaceRevision is optional and refuses (CONFLICT) if the artifact changed since. Repeating it returns the same dates.

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": {
      "artifactId": "<artifactId>"
    },
    "name": "artifact_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`why`	No	Required for workspace items: one sentence on what the person is trying to accomplish, in their terms, not a description of this edit. Every workspace write takes one; sessions and summaries record themselves from it. At most 300 characters.
`artifactId`	Yes	The artifact: its id, its alias (bare, ~agent/alias or _team/alias), or its page URL.
`expectedWorkspaceRevision`	No	Optional: refuse (CONFLICT) if the artifact changed since this workspaceRevision.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`purgeAt`	Yes
`deletedAt`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true): it discloses the soft-delete window, that the alias remains reserved, the response shape ('answer DELETED with the dates'), the authorization model per artifact type, and the CONFLICT condition on expectedWorkspaceRevision. Idempotency is made concrete ('Repeating it returns the same dates') rather than merely asserted.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior and packs auth, conflict and idempotency into a few clauses with no filler. The telegraphic phrasing ('reads then answer DELETED with the dates') is slightly garbled and costs a bit of readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile; the description still covers retention, permissions, conflict behavior and repeat-call semantics. Nothing essential for a correct call is absent, though a contrast with related delete tools would round it out.

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 still adds connective meaning by tying 'why' to workspace artifacts and expectedWorkspaceRevision to the CONFLICT outcome, but it does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the gain is modest.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move an artifact to the trash') and pins the semantics of the deletion: 30-day retention, alias stays held. That scope distinguishes it from a hard delete, though it never contrasts itself with version-level or folder-level deletion 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?

Gives concrete applicability conditions: standalone artifacts require the owner or a platform admin, workspace artifacts require editors plus a 'why'. What is missing is a when-not or an explicit pointer to an alternative tool, but the caller can tell from the conditions whether this call will be permitted.

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

All Tokenrip 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.