Deletes a content source by UUID to remove outdated or unwanted sources from VCF Automation.
Delete a content source DELETE /content/api/sources/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the content source (path) | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information, please refer to /content/api/about |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP route — it doesn't say what is destroyed downstream (e.g., synced content, dependent catalog items) or whether confirmation is required, which is the value a destructive-tool description should provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short lines with the action front-loaded and zero filler. The second line largely duplicates the annotation title ('DELETE /content/api/sources/{id}'), which keeps it from a 5, but nothing is bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-resource delete with annotations carrying the destructive/idempotent profile and no output schema to explain, the definition is minimally sufficient. It is missing the blast-radius information an agent would want before invoking a destructive open-world delete, such as cascading effects or auth requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with only two parameters, and the path template '{id}' in the description corroborates that the id is a path parameter. The description adds no format, validation, or apiVersion semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a content source') plus the underlying endpoint, so it is clearly differentiated from siblings like content_get_content_source, content_update_content_source, and content_list_content_sources. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus content_update_content_source or other content tools, and no prerequisites, permission requirements, or warnings about irreversible removal. The agent must infer all usage context from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.