Preview or delete a Frappe record by DocType and name; deletions require confirmation using the modified token from preview to prevent stale or accidental changes.
Preview or delete a record; confirmation requires the preview's modified token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| doctype | Yes | ||
| expected_modified | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that confirmation requires a modified token from a preview call, which is important for a destructive operation, but it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and what the preview versus delete responses contain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though its terseness leaves important structure and parameter guidance unstated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive, four-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still fails to explain doctype/name semantics, preview output, or deletion consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It indirectly explains confirm and expected_modified via the confirmation-token workflow, but says nothing about doctype, name, or how expected_modified relates to the record's version.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names two verbs (preview or delete) and the resource generically as 'record,' while the tool is named delete_document. It communicates the dual-mode nature but blurs what exactly is being deleted and does not differentiate the preview behavior from siblings like get_document or update_document.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies a two-step workflow: preview first, then confirm using the preview's modified token. However, it never explicitly says when to use preview versus delete, how to trigger each mode, or when to prefer alternatives such as get_document for inspection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.