SolidPing

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete status page

delete_status_page

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a status page by UID or slug, removing its sections, resources, and brand assets. No undo; use update_status_page with enabled:false to disable instead.

Instructions

Soft-delete a status page by UID or slug: the page disappears from the API and the public site, taking its sections and resources with it, and its uploaded brand assets are deleted. There is no undelete — use update_status_page with enabled:false to take a page down without destroying it. Returns {deleted: true, identifier}. Use delete_status_page_section or delete_status_page_resource to remove part of a page instead. Requires the mcp scope (mcp:read tokens are refused) and at least the user role in the organization.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`identifier`	Yes	Status page UID or URL-friendly slug, e.g. "public".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deleted`	Yes	Always true on success.
`identifier`	Yes	The identifier that was deleted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.38.5Oct 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "deleted": {
+      "description": "Always true on success.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "identifier": {
+      "description": "The identifier that was deleted.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "deleted",
+    "identifier"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.32.1Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the soft-delete semantics, the cascade (sections and resources go with it), that uploaded brand assets are physically deleted, that there is no undelete, and the auth requirement (mcp scope, mcp:read refused, user role). This is exactly the additional context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the action and its cascade, then the alternative, then the return shape, then auth — every clause carries distinct information with no filler despite the length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers destructive scope, irreversibility, cascading effects, auth prerequisites, alternatives, and even the return value (redundant given the output schema, but harmless). Nothing an agent needs before invoking this irreversible operation is missing.

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% and the single identifier parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the slug example. The description's 'by UID or slug' restates what the schema already says, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete a status page by UID or slug') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming update_status_page with enabled:false as the non-destructive alternative. An agent can identify this tool's role without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when-not to use it ('There is no undelete — use update_status_page with enabled:false') and routes partial deletions to section/resource tools. The only nit is that it names delete_status_page_section/delete_status_page_resource while the actual siblings are manage_status_page_section/manage_status_page_resource, but the intent is unambiguous.

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