High-Performance File System MCP Server

delete_directory

Delete a directory at the given path. Optionally recursively delete all contents for complete removal.

Instructions

Delete a directory and optionally all of its contents.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "delete_directory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to the directory to delete
`recursive`	No	Delete directory recursively (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining destructive behavior. It mentions 'optionally all of its contents', which hints at recursive deletion, but it does not disclose that deletion is permanent, that recursive defaults to true, or what happens when a non-empty directory is targeted without recursive. This is a significant gap for a deletion 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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and the optional recursive behavior without redundancy.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks critical context for safe usage. It does not mention that the default recursive value is true, which means contents are deleted by default, nor does it describe return values or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'optionally all of its contents' loosely maps to the recursive parameter, but it adds no new details beyond the schema's own description. The schema already explains both parameters adequately.

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 action ('Delete a directory') and the resource (a directory), which is specific and unambiguous. It also mentions the optional recursive behavior, and the sibling tools include delete_file and create_directory, making it easy to distinguish.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., non-empty directories without recursive), prerequisites, or safety checks. The only implicit clue is the word 'directory', but there is no direct comparison to delete_file or other tools.

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

Deploy Server