Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mesa-clm

mesa-clm

by idss-mesa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ds_delete_file

Deletes a file (data-object) or directory (collection) by path in mesa-clm, removing specified data or collections from the server.

Instructions

Delete a file (data-object) or directory (collection).

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ds_delete_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesThe path to the file (data-object) or directory (collection) to delete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state whether deletion is recursive for directories, whether it's reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to nonexistent paths. These are critical for a destructive operation.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and resource.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It should at least mention whether directory deletion is recursive, what happens on failure, or any side effects.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds only a minor clarification that the path can point to a file or directory, which is already implied by the parameter description. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource, and clarifies that 'file' means data-object and 'directory' means collection. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like ds_delete_avu or ds_delete_ticket. However, it doesn't differentiate further about scope or behavior relative to those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., permissions, whether the path must exist). The description is purely definitional.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools