Connhex MCP Server

Official

by compiuta-origin

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Delete Resource

delete_resource

Destructive

Permanently remove a resource from the IoT platform by providing its type and ID. This action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete a resource. This action is irreversible.

If available, call the get_schema tool first to discover valid resource types, attributes, and relationships.

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>"
    },
    "name": "delete_resource"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`resource_id`	Yes	Resource ID.
`resource_type`	Yes	Resource type name from get_schema, e.g. "devices" or "plants".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true, so the description's mention of irreversibility adds little beyond confirming the behavior. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects) are disclosed.

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 two sentences long, immediately stating the action and irreversibility, then providing a usage tip. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description appropriately includes the prerequisite call to get_schema. It lacks details on success/failure responses, but for a delete tool with rich structured data, this is adequate.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter detail beyond referencing get_schema for valid resource types, which is contextual but not semantic enhancement.

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 a resource') and its irreversibility. While it distinguishes from siblings like create_resource, it does not explicitly differentiate from delete_manufacturing_resource, which is a similar operation.

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?

The description recommends calling get_schema first to discover resource types, providing a clear contextual prerequisite. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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