docflow-mcp

Docflow Delete Review Rule

docflow_delete_review_rule

Remove an existing document review rule by providing its rule ID and workspace ID. Use this to clean up outdated or incorrect compliance review configurations.

Instructions

Delete a review rule (POST /review/rule/delete).

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>",
      "rule_id": "<rule_id>"
    },
    "name": "docflow_delete_review_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rule_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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the delete action but does not mention permanence, cascading effects, auth requirements, or failure behavior. This is a destructive operation, so more cautionary detail is needed.

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 one focused sentence with the endpoint clear in parentheses. It is concise and front-loaded, though slightly under-specified for a destructive operation.

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?

The tool is simple, but it is destructive and has no annotations or parameter explanations. The description is too thin to give the agent enough confidence about invocation semantics, workspace scoping, or what happens after deletion. The presence of an output schema helps, but does not fill the usage and behavioral gaps.

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 adds no parameter details. The parameter names 'rule_id' and 'workspace_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify relationships or expected values beyond what the bare schema already implies.

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?

The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Delete a review rule', and reinforces it with the endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_review_rule and setup_review_rules, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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 is provided for when to use this tool versus related tools such as docflow_delete_review_rule_group or docflow_update_review_rule. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.

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

Deploy Server