Claix

Delete Claix schema

claix.schemas.delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a Claix schema owned by the API key (POST /api/delete-schema). Requires schema_id.

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).
`schema_id`	Yes	UUID del schema creado en el dashboard de Claix. Ejemplo: 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000. Llama a claix.schemas.list primero si no lo conoces.

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedAug 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. However, description adds context about ownership and the specific endpoint. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., permanence, dependent resources) beyond what 'delete' implies. Since annotations cover the destructive nature, the description adds modest value.

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 two short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action, object, and endpoint; the second highlights the required parameter. No filler or redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (delete a schema by ID), the description is complete enough: it defines the operation, the scope, and the requirement. An output schema exists, so no need to explain return values. Slight omission: does not explicitly state that deletion is permanent, but destructiveHint true covers that. Overall adequate for a straightforward delete tool.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including detailed descriptions and examples. The description only mentions 'schema_id' as required, which adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the description is adequate but not enriched.

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 clearly states the action: 'Delete a Claix schema'. It specifies the HTTP method and endpoint (POST /api/delete-schema) and scopes the deletion to schemas 'owned by the API key'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like claix.schemas.create and claix.schemas.list.

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?

The description indicates a prerequisite ('Requires schema_id') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention looking up schemas first (though the schema parameter description does). Minimal guidance beyond the requirement.

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?