delete_articlePermanently remove an article from a Helpjuice knowledge base by its article ID. Confirm with the user before deleting, or unpublish the article instead to keep content recoverable.
Delete an article from the knowledge base. Confirm with the user first; consider unpublishing instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| articleId | Yes | Article ID (from search_knowledge_base or list_articles) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the human-confirmation requirement and the softer alternative. It stops short of saying whether deletion is permanent or what happens to linked content.
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 compact sentences with the action stated first and the caution immediately after; nothing is wasted.
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?
For a one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition supplies what the agent needs: the target, the confirmation step, and a safer alternative. Minor gap in not describing irreversibility or downstream effects.
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 single articleId parameter is already documented with its source. The description adds no parameter-level information, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an article from the knowledge base'), which clearly separates it from siblings like update_article or get_article. It does not explicitly name the sibling to use for the safer alternative, keeping it below a 5.
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?
'Confirm with the user first; consider unpublishing instead' gives a concrete precondition and an alternative course of action. The alternative is not tied to a named tool, so the agent must infer which sibling performs unpublishing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.