delete_solution_articleMove a Freshservice solution article to trash by its ID. Use this to remove outdated or incorrect knowledge base articles from the customer-facing solution library.
Move an article to trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| article_id | Yes | Solution article ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the important nuance that this is a soft delete ('move to trash'), which tempers the destructive framing and implies recoverability. It still doesn't say how long trashed articles persist or whether a restore path exists, keeping it below a 5.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the most important semantic detail (trash, not permanent removal) is the only thing it says.
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?
With a rich annotation set, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, most of the burden is already carried by structured fields. However, for a destructive operation the description leaves open what trashed means operationally and what the output represents, so it is only minimally adequate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter carries its own description ('Solution article ID'), so the schema does the work here. The description adds nothing about identifier format or source beyond what the schema already states.
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 ('Move an article to trash'), which is precise enough to distinguish this from a hard-delete sibling and from update_solution_article. It does not name any sibling or note the tool's place in the article lifecycle, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_solution_article, publish_solution_article, or delete_solution_category/folder, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.