Paperboy CMS

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_asset

Destructive

Permanently delete a media asset — by the asset's documentId from list_assets, not a page's — removing the database row and the stored file. Irreversible.

Instructions

Permanently delete a media asset — by the asset's documentId from list_assets, not a page's — removing the database row and the stored file. Irreversible. Content that still points at it is not blocked: delivery resolves those fields to null, so the image silently disappears from those pages — clear or replace them first. To stop using an image on one page, just clear that field with set_field and keep the asset. Returns {ok:true}. Requires the content.delete permission (Admin, Editor).

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": {
      "documentId": "<documentId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	No	Site slug or id to act in (multisite). Omit to use this server's default site. Call list_sites to see what exists — an empty tree or search usually means the wrong site, not missing content.
`documentId`	Yes	The asset's documentId from list_assets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.3Oct 20, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / documentId / description
```
Previous value: -"Content documentId"New value: +"The asset's documentId from list_assets."
```
First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: irreversible, row plus stored file both removed, dangling references are not blocked and silently resolve to null, and it names the required permission (content.delete, Admin/Editor). This is behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema or hints.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: identity disambiguation, irreversibility, the dangling-reference consequence, the set_field alternative, the return shape, and the permission. Front-loaded with the destructive core before the caveats.

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 everything an agent needs for a destructive, no-output-schema tool: what is destroyed, that it cannot be undone, the orphan-reference side effect, the safe alternative, the return value ({ok:true}), and the permission required. Nothing material is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by specifying that documentId must be the asset's id from list_assets rather than a page's id — a distinction the schema description only partially conveys. The 'site' parameter's multisite behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Permanently delete a media asset'), then immediately disambiguates which identifier to pass ('the asset's documentId from list_assets, not a page's'), routing the agent away from a common mix-up with sibling tools like get_content/list_assets.

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 covers the alternative path: 'To stop using an image on one page, just clear that field with set_field and keep the asset' — a clear when-not-to-delete rule naming the sibling tool. It also prescribes the prerequisite action ('clear or replace them first') before deleting referenced assets.

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