Skip to main content
Glama

Cloudflare: Delete r2 bucket

cloudflare_delete_r2_bucket
Destructive

Permanently deletes a Cloudflare R2 bucket and every object it contains, requiring R2 edit permission. Use only for intentional cleanup or removal because deleted data cannot be recovered.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Delete an R2 bucket and all its objects (requires R2 edit permission). DESTRUCTIVE — every object in the bucket is permanently lost.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "bucket_name": "<bucket_name>"
    },
    "name": "cloudflare_delete_r2_bucket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
account_idNo
bucket_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond them: the deletion cascades to every object in the bucket, the loss is permanent, and R2 edit permission is required. What remains unstated is confirmation/interlock behavior and error semantics on a non-existent bucket.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the risk warning. No filler and nothing redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an irreversible cascade-delete with no output schema, the description does cover the destruction scope and permission requirement, which is the most critical context. It falls short on parameter meaning and on what happens for missing buckets or how failure is surfaced.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never explains 'site', 'account_id' (nullable, defaulting to null), or the bucket name format, so an agent must guess at two of the three inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an R2 bucket') and adds scope ('and all its objects'), which separates it cleanly from create/get/list R2 bucket siblings. An agent can pick it out without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It names a prerequisite ('requires R2 edit permission'), which helps an agent decide whether the call can succeed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus alternatives such as emptying a bucket or deleting individual objects, leaving usage implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools