mcp-pcloud-crunchtools

Pcloud Delete File

pcloud_delete_file

Delete a file from pCloud by providing its path. This tool removes it securely through OAuth-based MCP access.

Instructions

Delete a file from pCloud.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "pcloud_delete_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.5.0Sep 22, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- removedOutput schema / description
```
Removed value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."
```
First observedv2.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action without mentioning that deletion is permanent, that the operation is destructive and irreversible, or what happens if the file does not exist. This is a significant gap for a deletion tool.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive operation with no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not cover irreversibility, path semantics, or error behavior. While an output schema exists, it does not compensate for the missing behavioral context needed to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter 'path' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not clarify the expected format (e.g., absolute vs. relative path), any restrictions, or what happens if the path is invalid. It adds no information beyond the schema.

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?

The description states 'Delete a file from pCloud,' which is a specific verb (delete) with a resource (file) and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling pcloud_delete_folder by specifying 'file.' An agent can immediately tell this tool from its folder-deletion counterpart.

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 like pcloud_delete_folder or pcloud_rename_file. It never states conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites (e.g., path must point to a file, not a folder).

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

Deploy Server