Delete MongoDB documents that match a specified filter. Provide database, collection, and filter JSON, and set confirm=true to execute the deletion.
Delete MongoDB documents matching a non-empty filter. confirm=true is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| database | Yes | ||
| collection | Yes | ||
| filter_json | Yes | ||
| session_name | No | default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the destructive action and the confirm requirement, but it doesn't clarify that all matching documents are deleted, that the operation is irreversible, or that permissions may be needed. The ambiguity of 'documents' (plural) without specifying 'all' is a gap.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action and includes the critical confirm requirement. It is appropriately concise for a simple destructive operation, though it omits necessary details covered under other dimensions.
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?
Given the destructive nature, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, this description is incomplete. It doesn't mention that all matching documents are deleted, the need for an active connection, or the output/result of the operation (though an output schema exists, it's not referenced). The agent lacks critical information to invoke this safely and correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only addresses filter_json (non-empty) and confirm (required), but leaves database, collection, and session_name undefined. The format of filter_json (e.g., JSON query syntax) is not explained, making it hard for an agent to construct valid input.
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 clearly states the verb 'Delete', the resource 'MongoDB documents', and the condition 'matching a non-empty filter'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mongo_find (read) and mongo_insert (insert). The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like an active connection (see db_connect sibling) or recommend previewing with mongo_find. The only usage note is the confirm=true requirement, which is a safety gate, not a selection criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.