mcp-creatio

Delete a record

delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently removes one Creatio CRM record by entity and ID after user confirmation; related records may block removal or be removed depending on the object.

Instructions

Permanently delete one record by id. Confirm with the user first: say which record (entity, name, id) will be deleted and wait for an explicit yes. Related records may block the delete (Creatio then reports a reference error) or be removed with it, depending on the object.

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": {
      "entity": "<entity>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Id of the record to delete.
`entity`	Yes	Entity (object schema) name, e.g. "Contact", "Account", "Activity".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.8.0Oct 25, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / entity / description

Previous value: -"Entity set to delete from (e.g., Contact, Account)."New value: +"Entity (object schema) name, e.g. \"Contact\", \"Account\", \"Activity\"."

changedInput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"Primary key of the record to delete. GUIDs can be passed as-is; non-GUID strings will be quoted automatically."New value: +"Id of the record to delete."

First observedv0.6.5Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds behavior the agent could not infer: the delete is permanent, a user confirmation handshake is mandatory, and related records may either block the delete with a reference error or be cascaded depending on the object. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 operation and its permanence, then the confirmation protocol, then the edge case. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 the destructive safety protocol and the failure/cascade behavior, which is the high-risk information for this tool. There is no output schema and the description does not say what a successful call returns, leaving one modest gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with both `id` and `entity` fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'entity, name, id' in the confirmation step adds only loose framing, not new semantic detail about either 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 scope: 'Permanently delete one record by id', which distinguishes it from bulk or admin-operation deletion siblings. It does not explicitly call out the nearby `delete-admin-operation` / `delete-admin-operation-grantee` siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit procedural guidance — confirm with the user, state entity/name/id, and wait for an explicit yes before invoking. It lacks a when-not/alternative clause (e.g., pointing at the admin-operation delete variants), so it falls short of a 5.

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