Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nodiom Cloud

by io.github.Synexiom-Labs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete node

nodiom_delete
DestructiveIdempotent

Removes the node or section matched by the selector. Changes are saved automatically.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doc_idYesDocument ID. Examples: "waitlist", "content-calendar", "metrics".
selectorYesStructural selector. Examples: "## Signups", "## Active > li[0]", "## Active > li[contains=\"id=c_7f3a\"]". Prefer the contains form when writing: an index is a position, not an identity, so if another agent appends to the same section between your read and your write, li[0] now points at a different node and your write lands on the wrong one. A contains selector must match exactly one node or it errors rather than guessing.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doc_idYesThe document id.
deletedYes
selectorYesThe selector the call addressed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "deleted": {
+      "const": true,
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "doc_id": {
+      "description": "The document id.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "selector": {
+      "description": "The selector the call addressed.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "doc_id",
+    "selector",
+    "deleted"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavior ("changes are saved automatically"), but omits what else is destroyed — e.g. whether deleting a section also removes its child nodes — which matters most for a destructive tool.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action first, the auto-save side effect second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 annotations carry the destructive/idempotent story. However, for a subtree-deleting mutation the description should say what happens to children of a deleted section and whether a non-matching selector no-ops or errors; those gaps keep it at minimum-viable rather than complete.

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%: doc_id and selector are documented at length, including selector syntax and the singleton-match error rule. The description's phrase "node or section matched by the selector" adds only a marginal gloss over what the schema already provides, so the 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+resource ("Removes the node or section") and scopes it via the selector, which separates it from nodiom_write/nodiom_append in sibling terms. It stops short of naming the alternative tools explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as nodiom_write (which likely overwrites) or nodiom_tree. Usage is only implied by "matched by the selector"; an agent is left to infer when deletion is preferable to rewriting.

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

All Nodiom Cloud toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources