Core Content Services MCP Server

Official

by ibm-ecm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

delete_document_version

Destructive

Remove a specific version of a document from a content repository using its ID or path.

Instructions

Deletes a specific document version in the content repository.

:param identifier: The document id or path (required). This can be either the document's ID (GUID) or its path in the repository (e.g., "/Folder1/document.pdf").

:returns: If successful, returns the deleted Document id. If unsuccessful, returns a ToolError with details about the failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`identifier`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv1.0.4May 4, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
removedInput schema / properties / identifier / title
```
Removed value: -"Identifier"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"delete_document_versionArguments"

removedOutput schema / $defs

Removed value: -{
-  "ToolError": {
-    "description": "Represents an error response from a tool execution.\n\nThis class helps the LLM understand error messages and provides suggestions\nfor potential resolutions.",
-    "properties": {
-      "isError": {
-        "const": true,
-        "default": true,
-        "description": "Indicates that an error occurred during tool execution if value is True",
-        "title": "Iserror",
-        "type": "boolean"
-      },
-      "message": {
-        "description": "Detailed error message",
-        "title": "Message",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "suggestions": {
-        "description": "List of suggestions for resolving the error",
-        "items": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "title": "Suggestions",
-        "type": "array"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "message"
-    ],
-    "title": "ToolError",
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-}

changedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/ToolError"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "description": "Represents an error response from a tool execution.\n\nThis class helps the LLM understand error messages and provides suggestions\nfor potential resolutions.",
+    "properties": {
+      "isError": {
+        "const": true,
+        "default": true,
+        "description": "Indicates that an error occurred during tool execution if value is True",
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "message": {
+        "description": "Detailed error message",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "suggestions": {
+        "description": "List of suggestions for resolving the error",
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "message"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / result / title
```
Removed value: -"Result"
```

removedOutput schema / title

Removed value: -"delete_document_versionOutput"

addedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Added value: +true
```

First observedv1.0.0Jan 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that failure results in a ToolError. However, it does not disclose necessary preconditions (e.g., permissions, checkout status) or side effects beyond deletion. Some value added but incomplete.

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 concise with two clear paragraphs: purpose, then parameter and return details. No wasted words, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return value. However, it misses behavioral context like when deletion is allowed or restrictions (e.g., cannot delete last version). Could be more complete.

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 0%, but the description fully explains the single parameter 'identifier': it is required, can be a GUID ID or repository path, with an example. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Deletes a specific document version in the content repository,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_version_series' or 'delete_folder'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides parameter requirements and return information but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'delete_version_series' or preconditions (e.g., version not checked out). Usage context is minimal.

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