warp-mcp

Delete a port document

port_delete_document

Destructive

Delete a document from a port request using its document ID and port request UUID. Removing a group's only current LOA blocks port submission again.

Instructions

Delete a document from the port project. Get document IDs from port_list_documents. Deleting a group's only current LOA will re-block port_submit_request for that group. Errors: NOT_FOUND, TNIQ_VALIDATION, TNIQ_ERROR.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "doc_id": "<doc_id>"
    },
    "name": "port_delete_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Port request UUID (from port_list_requests or port_create_request)
`doc_id`	Yes	Document ID (from port_list_documents)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations set destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specific behavioral context: deleting a group's only current LOA re-blocks port_submit_request. It also lists possible errors (NOT_FOUND, TNIQ_VALIDATION, TNIQ_ERROR). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second adds critical behavioral note, third lists errors. No redundant information. Efficient and front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With two well-described parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what inputs are needed, side effects, and errors. Complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description reinforces doc_id by referencing port_list_documents but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool deletes a document from a port project, specifies error types, and adds a critical behavioral detail about LOA deletion effects. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like port_upload_document and port_list_documents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description tells users to get document IDs from port_list_documents, linking to a sibling tool. It also warns about the LOA re-blocking consequence, guiding when deletion might be risky. However, it could explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for deleting the request itself).

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

Deploy Server