postfjord_delete_postDeletes a draft or cancelled Postfjord post by postId. Use it to remove abandoned content from the workspace so drafts and cancelled posts no longer clutter the content calendar.
Deletes a draft or cancelled post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postId | Yes |
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, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one contribution is the state restriction (only draft/cancelled posts), which is genuinely new context, but it doesn't say whether deletion is permanent or whether an invalid-state call errors.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler. It's efficiently written, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than pure economy.
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 destructive, idempotent single-parameter tool with annotations carrying the safety signals, this is close to adequate: the state restriction is stated and there's no output schema to explain. Still missing is whether the delete is reversible (trash vs permanent) and what error occurs on a published post.
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?
The single postId parameter has 0% schema description coverage — only a regex pattern — and the description never mentions it. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate with format or provenance guidance, and it provides none.
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 ('Deletes a ... post') and narrows scope to drafts and cancelled posts, which distinguishes it from sibling postfjord_cancel_post and postfjord_update_post. It stops short of telling the agent what happens to a published post, but the core action 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 phrase 'draft or cancelled' implies a precondition for use, but the description never says what to do instead when the post is in another state, nor does it point at postfjord_cancel_post as the prior step. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.