mcp-workato

delete_recipe

Permanently delete a Workato recipe by ID to remove it from the platform and halt any further runs.

Instructions

Delete a recipe permanently (DELETE /api/recipes/:id).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical fact that deletion is permanent, which alerts the agent to irretrievability. However, it does not mention required permissions, cascading effects on related resources (e.g., jobs/triggers), or side effects beyond the deletion itself.

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, dense sentence that conveys the core action, resource, permanence, and endpoint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple delete operation with one parameter, the description is adequate at a basic level. However, it omits practical details such as whether the deletion cascades to related recipes, what happens to in-flight jobs, expected response status, or authorization requirements. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the description should have provided more context for safe invocation.

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 provides no additional meaning for the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema already conveys (an integer identifier). The parameter is straightforward, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving any format constraints or context undocumented.

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 explicitly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('a recipe'), and the permanence ('permanently'), also specifying the HTTP endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recipe, start_recipe, or list_recipes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_recipe or reset_recipe_trigger. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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