Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
litewrite-mcp-server

litewrite-mcp-server

by KevinKwank
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete a File

litewrite_delete_file
Destructive

Delete a file or directory from a Litewrite project permanently. This action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete a file (or directory) from a Litewrite project (POST /api/internal/files/delete). This is irreversible.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "litewrite_delete_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesPath relative to the project root
projectIdYesThe Litewrite project id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds two genuinely new facts: the operation is irreversible (no undo/trash) and it also removes directories, not just files as the name/title suggest. It does not describe failure modes or permission requirements.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the endpoint and the irreversibility warning. 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations that already cover the safety profile, the description supplies the key extra facts (directory deletion, irreversibility). Only the absence of any recovery/permission context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so filePath and projectId are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about path resolution or project scoping, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete) and resource (file or directory) within a named product, and adds the underlying endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_file, write_file, and rename_file, though it does not explicitly name what it is not.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself and the caution that deletion is irreversible, which signals 'be certain before calling.' There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as rename_file for non-destructive reorganisation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools