Skip to main content
Glama

deleteGroup

Remove a group from your Pinata account using its unique ID to manage IPFS file organization and storage.

Instructions

Delete a group from your Pinata account by its ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkNoWhether the group is in public or private IPFSpublic
idYesThe unique ID of the group to delete

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:834-872 (registration)
    Registration and handler for the deleteGroup tool - deletes a group from Pinata account by ID using DELETE request to the API
    server.tool(
      "deleteGroup",
      "Delete a group from your Pinata account by its ID",
      {
        network: z
          .enum(["public", "private"])
          .default("public")
          .describe("Whether the group is in public or private IPFS"),
        id: z.string().describe("The unique ID of the group to delete"),
      },
      async ({ network, id }) => {
        try {
          const url = `https://api.pinata.cloud/v3/groups/${network}/${id}`;
    
          const response = await fetch(url, {
            method: "DELETE",
            headers: getHeaders(),
          });
    
          if (!response.ok) {
            throw new Error(
              `Failed to delete group: ${response.status} ${response.statusText}`
            );
          }
    
          const data = await response.json();
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `✅ Group deleted successfully\n\n${JSON.stringify(data, null, 2)}`,
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return errorResponse(error);
        }
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated files or data, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a group'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, achieving optimal conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails (e.g., irreversible removal), potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation operation in a system with many sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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%, with both parameters ('network' and 'id') well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by its ID', which aligns with the 'id' parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. No additional context on parameter usage or interactions is given, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a group from your Pinata account'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies deletion is done 'by its ID', which adds specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'deleteFile' or 'deletePaymentInstruction' beyond mentioning 'group'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the group ID from 'listGroups' or 'getGroup'), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it (e.g., if the group contains files). There's no comparison to sibling tools like 'removeFileFromGroup' or context for deletion decisions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/PinataCloud/pinata-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server