mcp-cloudflare-crunchtools

Delete Access Policy Tool

delete_access_policy_tool

Delete a Cloudflare Access application policy using the required zone, app, and policy IDs.

Instructions

Delete a policy from an Access application.

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>",
      "policy_id": "<policy_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_access_policy_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.7.2Oct 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a destructive operation but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects on the parent Access application. For a delete tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, so it scores well on efficiency while leaving room for more content.

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 fully covers the three ID parameters. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations, the absence of any warning about irreversibility or permission requirements leaves an important behavioral gap.

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% with all three IDs (zone_id, app_id, policy_id) documented including their formats (UUID, 32-char hex), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a policy from an Access application), which an agent can distinguish from sibling delete tools like delete_access_app_tool. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling or scoping the parent resources (zone/app) in prose, but the purpose 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_access_policies_tool or create_access_policy_tool, and no prerequisites such as needing the app to exist or the policy to be currently attached. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server