Librarian MCP Server

delete_document

Delete a document from the library permanently. Requires document ID and confirmation to prevent accidental removal.

Instructions

Delete a document from the library

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": {
      "documentId": "<documentId>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "delete_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	Yes	Confirmation to delete
`documentId`	Yes	The document ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description indicates a destructive action ('delete') but provides no behavioral details beyond that. No annotations are present, so the description holds the burden, yet it lacks information on consequences (e.g., irreversibility, cascading effects, permission requirements). The 'confirm' parameter in the schema is not highlighted.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core action. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits information about return values, error conditions, side effects, or any other context needed for safe use. The tool's simplicity (2 params) only partially mitigates this.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a document from the library'), which is sufficiently specific for basic identification. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_document' or 'get_document', but since deletion is a distinct operation, the purpose is clear.

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?

There is no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or scenarios where deletion should be avoided. The description simply states the action without context.

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

Deploy Server