nc-mcp-server

delete_form_share

DestructiveIdempotent

Revoke a previously granted share on a form by providing the form ID and share ID, removing access for the shared user.

Instructions

Revoke a share on a form.

Args: form_id: Numeric form id. share_id: Numeric share id.

Returns: Confirmation with the deleted 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": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>",
      "share_id": "<share_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_form_share"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`form_id`	Yes
`share_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a confirmation with the deleted id, which is a small behavioral detail beyond annotations. It does not disclose permissions, irreversibility details, or side effects beyond the annotation hints, but since annotations carry the main burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description is concise, with a clear purpose statement and a structured Args/Returns format. It front-loads the core action and includes no fluff. It could have provided more context, but it is efficient and well-organized, earning a 4 rather than a 3.

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 two required parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the return value ('Confirmation with the deleted id'), which is covered by the output schema but adds clarity. It does not mention error handling, prerequisites, or edge cases, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, this is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. However, it only restates the parameter names and adds 'Numeric', which is redundant with the integer type. It does not explain where to find form_id or share_id, what formats are valid, or any constraints. The description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Revoke a share on a form' with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling delete_share, but the name and scope are specific enough that an agent can identify its purpose. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_share, update_form_share, or create_form_share. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or scenarios that would select this tool over others. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server