docflow-mcp

Docflow Delete Review Rule Group

docflow_delete_review_rule_group

Delete a review rule group and all its rules in one operation. Remove obsolete compliance review configurations to keep your workspace organized.

Instructions

Delete a review rule group and all rules within it (POST /review/rule_group/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>",
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "docflow_delete_review_rule_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`group_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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the destructive scope: the group and all rules within it are deleted, which is important side-effect context beyond the tool name. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but the explicit cascade behavior is a significant disclosure.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and cascade scope, and the parenthetical endpoint adds useful routing information without bloating the text.

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 low-complexity two-parameter delete operation, the description names the resource, the endpoint, and the key cascade side effect; the presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations. It lacks explicit parameter semantics and preconditions, but those are minor for this tool.

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 'group_id' or 'workspace_id' beyond relying on their self-evident names. It adds no meaning about the required identifiers, relationship between workspace and group, or expected formats.

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 names the exact action (

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to siblings like 'docflow_delete_review_rule'. An agent must infer the intended use from the name and action alone.

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

Deploy Server