@growi/mcp-server

Official

by growilabs

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

deletePages

Destructive

Delete pages from GROWI by specifying page IDs and revision IDs. Supports recursive deletion and complete removal.

Instructions

Delete pages in GROWI

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": {
      "pageIdToRevisionIdMap": "<pageIdToRevisionIdMap>"
    },
    "name": "deletePages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`appName`	No	GROWI app name to operate on (optional, uses default if not specified)
`isCompletely`	No	Whether to completely delete the pages
`isRecursively`	No	Whether to delete child pages recursively
`isAnyoneWithTheLink`	No	Whether to delete pages accessible by anyone with the link
`pageIdToRevisionIdMap`	Yes	Map of page IDs to their revision IDs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1May 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It doesn't contradict annotations. While it aligns with the destructive nature, it omits details like irreversibility or permission requirements, but given annotations, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, achieving high conciseness. However, it lacks structure or examples that could improve clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, and destructive behavior, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain the meaning of key parameters like pageIdToRevisionIdMap or the implications of boolean flags, leaving an agent underinformed.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters described in the input schema. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond 'Delete pages'. Since high coverage reduces burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'pages in GROWI', making the tool's purpose straightforward. However, it does not differentiate from sibling delete tools like 'deleteShareLink' or 'deleteShareLinks', so it could be more specific.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. It simply states what it does without context for optimal use.

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