Skip to main content
Glama

Handoff: Send Files to Users & Agents

Delete a file

delete_file
Destructive

Delete a file you own. The bytes are removed and existing share links stop working. Requires your API key.

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": {
      "file_id": "<file_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNoSecret API key from signup. Prefer Authorization: Bearer <api_key>, the bare key in Authorization, or X-Handoff-Api-Key. Pass this only when you cannot set headers. Do not write it into a file you share.
file_idYesFile id returned by save_file, list_files, or share_file.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deletedYes
file_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes beyond them by naming concrete consequences: bytes are removed and existing share links stop working. It does not address behavior on a repeat delete even though idempotentHint=false signals that a second call would fail.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by consequences and auth. No filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers destructiveness and auth. The only gap is repeat-invocation behavior for a non-idempotent destructive tool, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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%, so both parameters (including the detailed api_key header-preference note) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the ownership constraint, not parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a file'), and adds the ownership scope ('you own'), which narrows the operation further. No sibling tool performs deletion, so no differentiation is needed.

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 ownership requirement and API-key requirement imply preconditions, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g., revoke_share for stopping access without deletion). Usage is only inferable.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.