mcp-itglue

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete IT Glue Attachment

itglue_delete_attachment

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently deletes an attachment from an IT Glue record; use it to remove unwanted files when the attachment ID is known. This action cannot be undone.

Instructions

PERMANENTLY delete an attachment from a record. This cannot be undone. Find the attachment ID with itglue_list_attachments.

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": {
      "resource_type": "<resource_type>",
      "resource_id": "<resource_id>",
      "attachment_id": "<attachment_id>"
    },
    "name": "itglue_delete_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`resource_id`	Yes	The parent record ID
`attachment_id`	Yes	The attachment ID to delete
`resource_type`	Yes	The record type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description emphasizes permanence ('PERMANENTLY delete' and 'cannot be undone'), which aligns with and adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not cover authorization or rate limits, but annotations already handle the destructive nature.

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 key fact of permanence. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 destructive operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, the key usage tip (how to get the ID), and the impact (permanent). No additional details are necessary.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds slight value by connecting attachment_id to itglue_list_attachments, but otherwise does not provide new information beyond the schema.

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) and the resource (attachment from a record). It also mentions that it is permanent, distinguishing it from sibling create tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It advises using itglue_list_attachments to find the attachment ID, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives like itglue_delete_documents for similar operations.

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