NexTool MCP for GLPI

Delete document-item link

glpi_delete_document_item

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a GLPI Document_Item link by ID; include a reason to preserve the audit trail.

Instructions

Remove a Document_Item link 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": {
      "documentItemId": "<documentItemId>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_delete_document_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – it doesn't note that only the association is removed (not the document), nor that the required reason is an audit-trail field.

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 waste, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being optimally informative.

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?

Annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a destructive mutation the description leaves the caller without confirmation that only the link is removed and the document is preserved, which is the key semantic an agent needs.

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%, and the schema documents both documentItemId and the required reason with its audit-trail purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'by ID' adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('Document_Item link'), which is enough to distinguish it from glpi_delete_document (which deletes the document itself, not the link). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling it could be confused with, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus glpi_delete_document or glpi_list_document_items, no prerequisites, and no stated side effects beyond the implicit deletion. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server