huly-mcp-selfhost

delete_document

Destructive

Permanently deletes a document by ID from a specified Huly workspace, removing obsolete or unwanted documents when they are no longer needed.

Instructions

Permanently delete a document by its ID

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "documentId": "<documentId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workspace`	Yes
`documentId`	Yes	Document _id to delete (from list_documents)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already supply destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Permanently' usefully confirms this is not a soft-delete/trash operation, which is real added context. It does not disclose side effects (orphaned attachments, comments, or blocks), required permissions, or whether the document ID becomes invalid afterward.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive qualifier placed before the action details. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter destructive tool with a destructiveHint annotation, the essential minimum (what it removes, keyed by ID, irreversibly) is present. Missing are cascade/irreversibility specifics and any hint about the undocumented workspace parameter, which matter given the operation is irreversible.

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 50%: documentId is documented in the schema (including a pointer to list_documents), while workspace is bare. The description's 'by its ID' adds nothing beyond the schema, so it neither compensates for the gap nor misleads.

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?

States a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and a specific resource ('a document'), with the lookup key ('by its ID') named. The resource noun alone separates it from siblings like delete_attachment, delete_comment, and delete_issue.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as update_document or other delete_* tools, and no preconditions (ownership, permissions, workspace scoping) are given. The word 'Permanently' hints that caution is needed but the definition stops short of actually routing the agent.

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

Deploy Server