mcp-itglue

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete IT Glue Document Section

itglue_delete_document_section

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently deletes one document section by document ID and section ID so you can restructure a document layout; the deletion cannot be undone.

Instructions

PERMANENTLY delete one section from a document. This cannot be undone. Useful for restructuring a document's layout.

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": {
      "document_id": "<document_id>",
      "section_id": "<section_id>"
    },
    "name": "itglue_delete_document_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`section_id`	Yes	The section ID to delete
`document_id`	Yes	The parent document ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description emphasizes 'PERMANENTLY delete' and 'cannot be undone', aligning with destructiveHint=true. It adds behavioral context about irreversibility beyond the annotation, which is helpful. No contradictions.

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, no unnecessary words. The key information (permanence, purpose) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple delete operation with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and irreversibility. It does not cover error cases or dependencies, but is sufficient for typical usage.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (document_id and section_id) with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 a section), the resource (one section from a document), and the purpose (restructuring layout). It distinguishes from sibling tools like itglue_delete_documents or itglue_delete_attachment.

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 says 'Useful for restructuring a document's layout' which implies when to use, but does not explicitly exclude other use cases or contrast with alternatives like updating the section order. No 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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