AFFiNE MCP Server

Delete Block

delete_block

Destructive

Delete a block by ID and return snapshots of removed content, including descendants and parent unlink by default. Use options to keep descendants orphaned or prune connectors.

Instructions

Delete a block by id and return snapshots of the removed content. Removes descendants and unlinks from the parent's sys:children by default; set deleteChildren=false to keep descendants orphaned (for re-parenting), or pruneConnectors=true to also drop surface connectors referencing any deleted id. Refuses affine:page — use delete_doc for whole docs.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`docId`	Yes	Document ID
`blockId`	Yes	Block id to delete.
`workspaceId`	No	Workspace ID (optional if default set)
`deleteChildren`	No	Also delete descendants (default true).
`pruneConnectors`	No	Also delete connectors bound to any deleted id (default false).
`expectedRevision`	No	Optional read_doc revision of this primary document. Reject stale content before writing. Covers document content, not workspace metadata; requires all writers to share one MCP server.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`code`	No
`error`	No
`reason`	No
`blockId`	No
`deleted`	No
`details`	No
`causeCode`	No
`retryable`	No
`deletedIds`	No
`deletedBlock`	No
`deletedBlocks`	No
`prunedConnectors`	No
`recoveryGuidance`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.10.2Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantive behavior: returns snapshots of removed content, unlinks from the parent's sys:children, cascades descendants by default, prunes surface connectors on request, and hard-refuses affine:page. This goes well beyond what the annotations disclose.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the default/flag semantics, then the refusal-plus-alternative. No filler; each clause routes a decision.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still signals the snapshot return, and it covers the destructive default, connector scope, and the affine:page guard. For a destructive mutation with 6 params, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the re-parenting rationale for deleteChildren=false and the surface-connector scope of pruneConnectors. That is value the schema itself does not carry.

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+resource ('Delete a block by id') with a clear return payload ('return snapshots of the removed content'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_doc by refusing affine:page. An agent can pick the right tool without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use branching per flag: default cascades descendants, deleteChildren=false for re-parenting via orphaning, pruneConnectors=true for connector cleanup. It also names the alternative for whole-doc deletion, closing the loop.

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

Deploy Server