mcp-cloudflare-crunchtools

Delete Access App Tool

delete_access_app_tool

Deletes a Cloudflare Access application so its hostname no longer requires Access login. Use zone and app IDs to remove the Access configuration.

Instructions

Delete an Access application, leaving its hostname with no Access login.

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": {
      "zone_id": "<zone_id>",
      "app_id": "<app_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_access_app_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`app_id`	Yes	Application ID (UUID)
`zone_id`	Yes	Zone ID (32-character hex string)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.7.2Oct 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one key side-effect: the hostname persists but loses its Access login, distinguishing this from a broader teardown. However, it omits irreversibility, required permissions, and any confirmation the deletion succeeded.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, and the outcome is front-loaded after the verb. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers both parameters. What is missing for a destructive operation with no annotations is the irreversibility/permission context, which the description does not address.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents app_id (UUID) and zone_id (32-char hex). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (Access application) and adds the outcome 'leaving its hostname with no Access login,' which clarifies exactly what state results. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like delete_access_policy_tool, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or warnings about the operation. Usage is only implied by the verb. Nothing tells the agent when deletion is appropriate or what to check first.

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

Deploy Server