NexTool MCP for GLPI

Delete document

glpi_delete_document

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a document by ID with a required audit reason. Use it to remove outdated or incorrect files from GLPI.

Instructions

Permanently delete a document by 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": {
      "documentId": "<documentId>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_delete_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	Yes	Why this item is being deleted (audit trail, required)
`documentId`	Yes	Item ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and repeat-call profile is covered. The description's 'Permanently' reinforces irreversibility, which is mildly additive, but it omits the audit-trail reason requirement and any permission/authorization caveats. With annotations carrying most of the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough that it omits useful routing information rather than merely being compact.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return values and safety need not be explained. The remaining gaps are sibling disambiguation (glpi_delete_document_item) and the mandatory reason parameter, which the schema covers but the description never acknowledges.

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% (documentId and required reason with audit-trail note), so the description adds nothing beyond naming the ID argument. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete a document') and the identifier scope ('by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what entity is affected. However, it does not differentiate from the close sibling glpi_delete_document_item, which deletes a document-item association rather than the document itself.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or permission context, and no pointer to alternatives such as glpi_delete_document_item or glpi_list_documents. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server