4d-mcp

delete

Delete records from a 4D dataclass using a primary key or query filter.

Instructions

Delete records from a 4D dataclass

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": {
      "dataClass": "<dataClass>"
    },
    "name": "delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	No	Primary key of specific record to delete
`filter`	No	4D query filter to select records to delete
`dataClass`	Yes	Name of the dataclass

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete records' without mentioning that deletion is permanent, may require specific permissions, or could have cascading effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, though it could incorporate more context without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and the destructive nature of the operation, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain that key or filter is needed to target records, the permanence of deletion, or any safety/confirmation mechanisms, making it insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema describes all parameters with 100% coverage, providing clear roles for 'key', 'filter', and 'dataClass'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('records from a 4D dataclass'), making the tool's primary function clear. It is naturally distinguished from sibling tools like 'query' and 'upsert' which handle reading and writing, not deletion.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisite conditions, and no exclusions (e.g., cannot be undone). It merely states the action without contextual usage advice.

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

Deploy Server