Cookidoo MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Collection

delete_collection

Destructive

Permanently removes a user's custom collection after explicit confirmation; recipes inside remain, but the collection and its organization are lost and the action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete one of the user's custom collections. The recipes in it are not deleted, but the collection and its organisation are lost; this cannot be undone. Requires confirm=true after the user explicitly agreed.

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": {
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Must be true; refuses otherwise
`collection_id`	Yes	ID from list_collections (kind="custom")

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: the recipes survive, the collection and its organisation are lost, the action is irreversible, and there is a confirm gate that refuses otherwise. This is exactly the context a mutation tool needs beyond its annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then consequences, then the confirmation requirement — no filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing material is missing: scope, side effects, irreversibility and the confirmation protocol are all stated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning above that by tying 'confirm=true' to an explicit user agreement, an interaction-level constraint the schema's 'Must be true; refuses otherwise' does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a scope qualifier: 'Delete one of the user's custom collections.' An agent can immediately distinguish it from recipe deletion or from add_to_collection/remove_from_collection, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition — the destructive action requires confirm=true only after the user explicitly agreed — which tells the agent the conversational sequence required before calling. It does not point at alternatives (e.g. remove_from_collection) for the non-destructive case, which keeps it below a 5.

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