Skip to main content
Glama
jupiterbak

AYX-MCP-Wrapper

by jupiterbak

delete_collection

Remove a collection from Alteryx Server using its unique identifier to manage and organize workflow resources.

Instructions

Delete a collection by its ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
collection_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that implements the delete_collection tool logic. It first checks if the collection exists, then calls the Alteryx collections API to delete it, and formats the response.
    def delete_collection(self, collection_id: str):
        """Delete a collection by its ID"""
        try:
            collection = self.collections_api.collections_get_collection(collection_id)
            if not collection:
                return "Error: Collection not found"
            api_response = self.collections_api.collections_delete_collection(collection_id)
            return pprint.pformat(api_response)
        except ApiException as e:
            return f"Error: {e}"
  • MCP tool registration and thin handler wrapper that delegates to the AYXMCPTools instance's delete_collection method.
    @self.app.tool()
    def delete_collection(collection_id: str):
        """Delete a collection by its ID"""
        return self.tools.delete_collection(collection_id)
  • The FastMCP @tool decorator registers this as the entry-point handler for the 'delete_collection' tool, which proxies the call to the underlying tools implementation.
    @self.app.tool()
    def delete_collection(collection_id: str):
        """Delete a collection by its ID"""
        return self.tools.delete_collection(collection_id)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a collection but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects associated schedules/workflows, or has side effects. For a destructive operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover critical aspects like confirmation prompts, error conditions, or what happens post-deletion, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description mentions 'by its ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'collection_id' in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add details like ID format or validation rules. It compensates minimally, meeting the baseline for a single parameter tool.

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 ('Delete') and target resource ('a collection by its ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_collection_by_id' or 'update_collection_name_or_owner'. However, it doesn't specify what happens to the collection's contents or associated resources, which would make it more specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deactivate_schedule' or 'remove_schedule_from_collection', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing the collection to be empty or having proper permissions. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jupiterbak/AYX-MCP-Wrapper'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server