docflow-mcp

Docflow Delete Review Repo

docflow_delete_review_repo

Permanently delete a review rule repository, including all its groups and rules, while preserving existing review task results.

Instructions

Delete a review rule repository and all its groups and rules (POST /review/rule_repo/delete). WARNING: This is permanent. Existing review task results are not affected.

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": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "repo_id": "<repo_id>"
    },
    "name": "docflow_delete_review_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo_id`	Yes
`workspace_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that deletion is permanent and clarifies that existing review task results are not affected. These are the most important behavioral facts for a destructive operation, though permissions and failure modes are not covered.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded first, and the critical permanence warning follows immediately.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: cascade deletion, permanence, and non-impact on existing task results. It lacks explicit parameter guidance, but the required fields and their names are present in the schema, so an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain workspace_id or repo_id. The parameter names are meaningful in context, but the description adds no direct parameter-level meaning, so the agent must infer which identifier refers to the repository and which scopes the operation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a review rule repository and all its groups and rules'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that delete individual review rule groups or rules, and the endpoint is also included.

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 intended use is clear from the action, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over delete_review_rule_group or delete_review_rule, nor does it provide when-not conditions. The cascade scope implies the usage, but alternative routing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server