open-mcp-apps

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete item

data_delete_item

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes an item from open-mcp-apps data while preserving the ledger's last contents; on confirmation_required, show the note and resend with request_state.

Instructions

Delete an item. The ledger keeps its last contents. May return reason:"confirmation_required" with a request_state — show the user what is named in note, then re-send the same call with request_state attached.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`actor`	No
`collection`	No	the item's collection, if known — the write is refused unless the row is in it
`command_id`	Yes	idempotency key — generate a fresh uuid per action
`request_state`	No
`expected_version`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`ok`	Yes
`eot`	No
`seq`	No
`item`	No
`note`	No
`reason`	No
`deleted`	No
`preview`	No
`collection`	No
`expires_at`	No
`violations`	No
`request_state`	No
`expected_version`	No
`prev_collection_seq`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.1Oct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / collection

Added value: +{
+  "description": "the item's collection, if known — the write is refused unless the row is in it",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / require_confirmation
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
```

First observedv0.5.7Aug 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two traits annotations cannot express: that the ledger retains the last contents (audit/soft-delete behavior) and the two-step confirmation handshake with request_state. It still omits permission requirements and the effect of a stale expected_version.

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 then the two non-obvious behaviors. No filler, no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return shapes need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the highest-risk flow (confirmation/request_state) well, but a destructive mutation with an expected_version parameter should say more about version conflicts and actor semantics.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry more of the burden. It does add real meaning for request_state (attach it on the retry), but leaves id, actor, and expected_version entirely unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 and resource ('Delete an item'), which cleanly separates it from data_update_item, data_move_item, and data_add_item in the sibling list. It stops short of naming an alternative or scoping what an 'item' is, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 gives a real procedural rule for the confirmation_required path (show the user the `note`, then re-send with request_state), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it says nothing about when to choose this tool over siblings or what preconditions (collection membership, version) must hold, so usage is only partially covered.

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