Deletes a file from Concrete CMS using its file ID to remove it from the site.
Delete a file by its ID
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "delete-file-by-id"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0-alpha.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to pages or blocks referencing the file, what errors occur for a missing ID, or whether confirmation is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. Brevity crosses into under-specification for a destructive operation, but the sentence itself is well-formed and structurally clean.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation with no output schema and an empty input schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about permanence, side effects on referencing content, and the ID's location/format. Only the bare act of deletion is conveyed, which is not enough to invoke it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema declares zero properties, yet the description says the file is identified "by its ID" — this is the only signal that an ID must be supplied, which is genuinely useful given the empty schema. However, it never says how that ID is passed or what format it takes, so the ambiguity is only partly resolved.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ("Delete") and resource ("a file") plus the selector ("by its ID"), so the operation is immediately legible. It does not distinguish itself from the many parallel delete-by-id siblings (delete-block-by-id, delete-page-by-id, delete-user-by-id), leaving that differentiation to the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says when deletion is appropriate versus update-file-by-id, or what to do instead if the file might still be referenced. There are no preconditions, no note about whether this is permanent or moves to a trash, and no mention of the sibling delete tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.