contextium-mcp-server

Official

by contextium-io

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remote

delete

Delete a resource by moving it to trash, keeping it restorable. Supports files, skills, and workflows.

Instructions

Delete a resource (moves to trash, restorable). type: file | skill | workflow

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Resource ID
`type`	Yes	Resource type: file \| skill \| workflow
`workspaceId`	No	Workspace ID (required for workflow). If not provided, uses your default workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that deletion moves to trash and is restorable, which is a key behavioral trait beyond the basic destructive nature. Does not mention permissions or side effects, but the trash/restorable note adds value.

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?

Single sentence with essential information and a list of types. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the operation's effect (trash/restorable) and resource types. Could mention return status, but not critical.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal new meaning beyond repeating the enum values for 'type'. Baseline 3 applies because schema already documents parameters. The description does not clarify format, constraints, or relationships.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'delete', the resource type with enumerations (file, skill, workflow), and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_agent or delete_identity which are more specific.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies usage for deleting resources of the listed types, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over more specific delete tools (e.g., delete_agent) or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server