OpenPapers

Delete collection

delete_collection

Delete a local collection and its memberships while preserving the papers themselves.

Instructions

Delete a persistent local collection and its memberships without deleting papers.

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": {
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`collection_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that memberships are deleted as part of the operation and that papers are not deleted. It does not mention irreversibility or side effects, but the main destructive scope is clearly stated.

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 sentence of about 16 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary filler. It earns its length and communicates the key distinction efficiently.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is deleted, what is preserved, and implies the intended use. It stops short of noting irreversibility or suggesting how to obtain the collection_id, so it is not a 5.

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%, and the description does not add meaning about collection_id, such as where to find it or how it relates to the collection. The parameter name is self-descriptive and constrained, so it is not a 1, but the description provides no real guidance beyond the schema itself.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('persistent local collection'), and clearly defines the scope: collection and its memberships are removed, while papers are preserved. This distinguishes it from membership-only operations and paper deletion.

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?

The description implies this tool is for deleting an entire collection while retaining the underlying papers, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as remove_paper_from_collection or state when not to use this tool. The usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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