mcp-creatio

Delete system operations

delete-admin-operation

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes system operations by ID along with their grants, since the generic delete tool is blocked for this table; confirm with the user before deleting.

Instructions

Delete system operations by id, together with their grants. The generic delete tool is blocked for this table. Confirm with the user first. See get-guide: admin-operation-guide.

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "delete-admin-operation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	Ids of the operations (find them with read on SysAdminOperation by Code).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.0Oct 25, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / ids / description

Previous value: -"List of SysAdminOperation Ids to delete (RightsService deletes them and their related grantee rows). Use the standard `read` tool on `SysAdminOperation` to look up Ids by Code first."New value: +"Ids of the operations (find them with read on SysAdminOperation by Code)."

First observedv0.6.5Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

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 still adds real value beyond that: the cascade to grants, the fact that the generic delete path is blocked, and the human-confirmation requirement. It stops short of describing failure/partial-delete behavior, which would be the last useful detail.

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 cascade, then the blocking constraint, then the confirmation requirement. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with full annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what gets deleted along with it, why this tool rather than 'delete', and the confirmation requirement. Only the outcome on partial failure and the response shape are unaddressed, and the guide reference partly offsets that.

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% and the single parameter already carries a description explaining how to find the ids ('read on SysAdminOperation by Code'), including a UUID pattern. The description only restates 'by id', adding no format or lookup detail beyond the schema — 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?

Specific verb and resource ('Delete system operations by id') plus a scope detail that matters: the deletion cascades to their grants. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'delete' tool, which is explicitly blocked for this table.

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 routing ('the generic delete tool is blocked for this table'), a required precondition ('confirm with the user first'), and a pointer to deeper guidance via get-guide: admin-operation-guide. Nothing about when to pick this over 'delete' is left to inference.

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