docs-publisher

delete_tutorial

Removes a tutorial from the documentation repository using its docs-relative path, with an optional commit message. Confirm with the user before deletion.

Instructions

Delete a tutorial from the documentation repo. Confirm with the user before calling.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "delete_tutorial"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Tutorial path relative to the docs folder
`commit_message`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the destructive nature and a required user-confirmation step, which is genuine behavioral value. However, it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and whether the deletion is committed to the repo or staged for review — significant gaps for a mutation 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 sentences with zero filler, purpose front-loaded before the safety instruction. Nothing redundant.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema needs more: the description doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether the deletion is committed immediately, or how the optional commit_message should be used. The undocumented second parameter is left entirely to inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: 'path' is documented in the schema while 'commit_message' is undocumented, and the description mentions neither parameter. It therefore adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 a tutorial from the documentation repo' — which clearly separates it from list_tutorials, read_tutorial, edit_tutorial, and publish_tutorial. It stops short of explicitly naming the destructive sibling contrast, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (when a tutorial should be removed) and adds a procedural constraint ('Confirm with the user before calling'), but it gives no guidance on alternatives — e.g., whether to prefer edit_tutorial or unpublishing instead of deletion. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server