Skip to main content
Glama

deleteSignature

Remove signatures from IPFS content identifiers to manage access permissions and control file visibility on public or private networks.

Instructions

Remove a signature from a CID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkNoWhether the file is on public or private IPFSpublic
cidYesThe CID to remove the signature from

Implementation Reference

  • The complete implementation of the deleteSignature tool that removes a cryptographic signature from a CID on Pinata IPFS. It accepts network (public/private) and cid parameters, makes a DELETE request to the Pinata API, and returns a success or error response.
    server.tool(
      "deleteSignature",
      "Remove a signature from a CID",
      {
        network: z
          .enum(["public", "private"])
          .default("public")
          .describe("Whether the file is on public or private IPFS"),
        cid: z.string().describe("The CID to remove the signature from"),
      },
      async ({ network, cid }) => {
        try {
          const url = `https://api.pinata.cloud/v3/files/${network}/signature/${cid}`;
    
          const response = await fetch(url, {
            method: "DELETE",
            headers: getHeaders(),
          });
    
          if (!response.ok) {
            throw new Error(
              `Failed to delete signature: ${response.status} ${response.statusText}`
            );
          }
    
          const data = await response.json();
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `✅ Signature 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Remove,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, or what happens to the CID after signature removal. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error handling, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in context.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what a 'signature' is in this context or how removal affects the CID). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('Remove') and target ('signature from a CID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleteFile' or 'deleteFileVectors', which also perform deletion operations on related resources, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.

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 like 'deleteFile' or 'getSignature', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It's a basic statement of function without contextual usage information.

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