glpi_delete_entityPermanently delete a GLPI entity by ID to remove it from the service desk. Requires a deletion reason for audit; action is irreversible.
Permanently delete an entity by ID. WARNING: irreversible action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | Why this item is being deleted (audit trail, required) | |
| entityId | Yes | Entity ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.2Does 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 largely covered. The description reinforces permanence/irreversibility, which is marginally more than the annotation states, but omits important behavior such as whether child entities/items are cascade-deleted and what authorization the operation requires.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The warning clause duplicates what the destructiveHint annotation already conveys, so it is not purely additive, but the text is efficiently sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the destructive profile. What remains missing for a destructive, low-level admin tool is cascade/impact behavior and any prerequisite or confirmation guidance, leaving it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents both parameters including the required 'reason' audit-trail field. The description adds only the 'by ID' hint for entityId and says nothing about the mandatory reason, so it cannot exceed the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete an entity') and the 'by ID' qualifier pins the identifier. It does not, however, distinguish this from the many sibling delete tools (glpi_delete_document_item, glpi_delete_knowbase_item, etc.) or from glpi_update_entity, so the agent gets no help routing between them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no indication of when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., permission level, whether the entity must be empty), and no note that glpi_update_entity is the non-destructive path. The only guidance is the irreversible warning, which is about risk rather than usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.