Unofficial Lexware Office MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_article

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently removes an article by its Lexware ID only after explicit confirmation; deletion is irreversible and not archived.

Instructions

Delete an article. The API has no way back.

The record is removed, not archived: reading it afterwards is a "not found". One API call, and only once confirm is true.

Documents that already quote this article keep their line items, which hold their own copy of the text and the price.

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": {
      "article_id": "<article_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Must be true. Nothing is sent without it, so a call made by accident fails instead of deleting something.
`article_id`	Yes	The article's Lexware id, as returned by search_articles.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.8.4Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context: the record is removed rather than archived, subsequent reads return 'not found', and documents that quote the article retain their own copies of text and price. That last point is a non-obvious side effect an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The irreversibility warning is front-loaded and every sentence carries information. The final paragraph on quoted documents is slightly tangential but earns its place by disclosing a real side effect; the line breaks are cosmetic noise.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers reversibility, post-deletion read behavior, the confirm gate, and downstream effects on related documents. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description reinforces the gating semantics of `confirm` ('only once `confirm` is true'), adding behavioral meaning beyond the schema's own wording. It does not add anything for article_id, which the schema already covers.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete an article') and immediately qualifies the scope with irreversibility, which cleanly separates it from the sibling create_article/update_article tools without needing to name them.

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 states a precondition for invocation ('only once `confirm` is true'), which is useful usage guidance, but it never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as update_article or when deletion is inappropriate. The when-to-use context is implied rather than explicit.

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