Tokenrip

Delete workspace

workspace_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Move the workspace and everything in it to the trash for 30 days. Workspace administrators (and platform admins) only; 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": {
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>"
    },
    "name": "workspace_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace: its id or its slug.

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / workspaceId / description

Previous value: -"The workspace id (UUID)."New value: +"The workspace: its id or its slug."

removedInput schema / properties / workspaceId / format
```
Removed value: -"uuid"
```
addedInput schema / properties / workspaceId / maxLength
```
Added value: +64
```
addedInput schema / properties / workspaceId / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```

removedInput schema / properties / workspaceId / pattern

Removed value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description still adds real value: the deletion is recoverable via a 30-day trash window, contents go with the workspace, and repeating the call returns the same dates rather than erroring. The auth requirement (workspace/platform admins) is also disclosed, which no annotation covers.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The destructive scope and retention window come first, the permission and idempotency caveats second – a sensible front-loading for a destructive operation.

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?

With rich annotations, a fully described schema, and an output schema present, the description covers what an agent must know before calling: what is destroyed, how long it is recoverable, who may do it, and what a repeat call yields. It stops short of mentioning how to undo (trash_restore) or whether trashed content still consumes storage, which would round it out.

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% – both workspaceId (id or slug) and the mandatory 'why' sentence are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it neither compensates for nor detracts from an already complete schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 scope: moving the workspace *and everything in it* to trash, with a 30-day retention window. That soft-delete framing implicitly separates it from a hard delete like trash_purge. It does not name a sibling outright, so it lands just below the top mark.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Workspace administrators (and platform admins) only' gives an explicit permission precondition, and the repeat-behavior note tells the agent what a second call does. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over trash_purge, trash_restore, or workspace_update, so alternative routing is left to inference.

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.