ksef-mcp

ksef_draft_delete

Destructive

Delete an invoice draft from the KSeF system. Removes only drafts in 'draft' or 'error' status to clean up invalid entries.

Instructions

Usuń draft faktury. Można usunąć tylko drafty w statusie draft lub error.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "ksef_draft_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID draftu (UUID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate destructiveness. It adds useful context by restricting deletion to draft/error statuses, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects.

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?

The description is two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The verb and resource come first, and the important status restriction is clearly front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter delete operation with a destructive annotation and a stated status constraint. The description provides everything essential for an agent to invoke it correctly, and no output schema exists to require return-value explanation.

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?

The schema already covers the sole 'id' parameter fully with 'ID draftu (UUID)', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Usuń' = delete) and resource ('draft faktury' = invoice draft), clearly indicating the operation. It also adds the draft/error status constraint, which helps distinguish this tool from sibling draft operations like ksef_draft_get, ksef_draft_update, and ksef_draft_validate.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states the explicit precondition: 'Można usunąć tylko drafty w statusie draft lub error' (only drafts in draft or error status can be deleted). This tells the agent when deletion is allowed, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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