HelpCenter.io

Delete a Script

helpcenter_remove_template_script

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete one script or snippet from the draft. To stop it running but keep it, switch it off with helpcenter_update_template_script (enabled:false) instead.

It edits the help center's design DRAFT (its v2 template): the draft the dashboard's Template Editor opens, with a live preview. Nothing reaches visitors until helpcenter_publish_template — after editing, give the customer the Template Editor link from the result to review, and publish only when they ask. v2 help centers only (a classic one answers template_migration_required). Ids come from helpcenter_get_template.

This is the guide's remove_script operation.

Args:

id (string): the script.
etag (string, optional): from your last read or edit; refuses (stale_draft) if the draft changed since.

Returns: what each entry did (new ids), warnings worth relaying, and the draft status with its new etag.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "helpcenter_remove_template_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Id of a script, as the draft reports it.
`etag`	No	Optimistic lock: the draft etag from your last read, or the one your last edit returned. When given, the call is refused (stale_draft) if someone changed the draft since — so you never build on a state you have not seen. Omit to apply to the current draft.
`site_id`	No	Which help center to act on: an id from helpcenter_list_sites. Needed when this connection reaches more than one help center; omit it when it reaches one. Applies to this call only — pass it on every call of a task, and ask the user which help center they mean if their request does not say.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: edits land only in the draft, nothing reaches visitors until publish, stale_draft refusal semantics for etag, and the v2-only restriction. Return values are summarized (new ids, warnings, draft status/etag), though it doesn't say whether removal is reversible via version restore.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the operation and the alternative in the first sentence, then layers draft/publish context, then a compact Args/Returns block. Slightly repetitive on the etag/stale_draft point (mentioned in prose and again in Args), which is the only waste.

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?

Covers purpose, alternative, draft-vs-live model, version constraint, id provenance, failure modes, and return shape — ample for a 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema. Missing only whether the change can be undone (version restore) and whether publish is required for anything else in the same task.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, yet the description adds provenance not in the schema ('Ids come from helpcenter_get_template') and restates the stale_draft consequence of etag in workflow terms. site_id semantics are left entirely to the schema, which already documents them fully, so no compensation is needed.

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 precise verb and resource ('Delete one script or snippet from the draft') and immediately distinguishes the operation from the non-destructive alternative helpcenter_update_template_script with enabled:false. An agent can pick between removal, disablement, and addition (helpcenter_add_template_script) without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance ('To stop it running but keep it, switch it off...instead'), plus the downstream workflow constraint: review in the Template Editor and publish only on request via helpcenter_publish_template. It also states the v2-only precondition and the template_migration_required failure mode.

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

All HelpCenter.io 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.

Resources

Need Help?