Claix

Delete a persisted document

claix.document.delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a persisted document by document_id (DELETE /delete-document/{document_id}). No body or query params. Returns { document_id } on success. Irreversible. Free call. 404 if the document does not exist, is foreign, or was already purged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key`	No	API key secreta de Claix. Ejemplo: claix_sk_abc123.... Opcional si la conexión MCP envía x-api-key en cabecera HTTP (recomendado en Smithery/Cursor).
`document_id`	Yes	UUID del documento persistido (document_id de una extracción con window_context). Ejemplo: 3c7a9f21-4b8e-4d1a-9c6f-2e0d8a5b7c4f.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	JSON payload from the Claix API (extracted records, schema list, or Excel export metadata).
`error`	No	Human-readable error message when success is false.
`success`	Yes	True when Claix returned a successful response. False when isError is set on the tool result.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds 'Irreversible,' 'Free call,' the success response shape, and specific 404 conditions, all of which materially inform an agent's decision to invoke this destructive tool. It fully aligns with the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: the operation, the HTTP route, parameter constraints, success response, irreversibility, cost, and error semantics. It is compact, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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 two-parameter destructive tool, the description covers invocation, success behavior, failure conditions, cost, and side effects. The output schema and parameter descriptions in the input schema cover the remaining structured details, making this definition effectively complete.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying that document_id is a path parameter and that no body or query parameters are accepted, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 a persisted document by document_id,' and reinforces it with the exact HTTP path (DELETE /delete-document/{document_id}). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like claix.schemas.delete by targeting persisted documents rather than schemas.

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?

The intended use is clear: delete a persisted document when its document_id is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it provides strong operational guidance by stating there are no body/query parameters and by explaining the 404 behavior for missing, foreign, or already-purged documents.

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

All Claix tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct role: extract.* produces raw structured JSON, agent.* adds agent-mode reasoning, schemas.* manages schemas, and window_context.* handles persisted documents. Even the parallel extract/agent pairs for each format are disambiguated by the agent/group prefix and explicit descriptions about is_agent_mode.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools follow a claix.<group>.<target> convention with lowercase snake_case, which is predictable and readable. The main inconsistency is action placement: extract.doc is verb-first while schemas.create is object-first, and convert.json_to_excel uses a noun phrase instead of a verb.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool maps to a distinct endpoint or format variant. The parallel extract and agent families are justified by different processing modes, though they do make the surface feel a bit heavier than necessary.

Completeness4/5

The set covers schema lifecycle (create, list, delete), extraction for five major formats, agent-mode variants, document deletion, and window-context query/retrieval. Minor gaps include no schema update endpoint and no generic document listing/retrieval outside window_context.

Resources

Need Help?