apidog-mcp

apidog_delete_api_detail

Delete a specific API detail from an Apidog project. Requires confirmDelete=true to confirm and execute the deletion.

Instructions

Delete an Apidog API detail/request. Requires confirmDelete=true.

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": {
      "apiDetailId": "<apiDetailId>",
      "confirmDelete": "<confirmDelete>"
    },
    "name": "apidog_delete_api_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`branchId`	No	Optional Apidog branch ID. Falls back to apidog.json.
`projectId`	No	Apidog project ID. Falls back to apidog.json.
`apiDetailId`	Yes
`confirmDelete`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only repeats the schema's confirmDelete constraint and provides no information about irreversibility, cascading effects, permissions, or what happens after deletion.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. However, the 'Requires confirmDelete=true' clause is redundant with the schema and does not earn its place fully.

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 delete tool with no annotations or output schema, the description omits critical context such as how to obtain apiDetailId, whether deletion is permanent, and what the response indicates. It is inadequate for safe usage.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters like apiDetailId and confirmDelete. It only restates the confirmDelete requirement and does not clarify the role of apiDetailId beyond the tool's action.

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 tool's action ('Delete an Apidog API detail/request') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by naming 'API detail/request', though ambiguity with 'delete_request' prevents a 5.

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 like delete_request or delete_endpoint. The only usage hint is 'Requires confirmDelete=true', which is a constraint, not a contextual recommendation.

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

Deploy Server