delete_postPermanently delete a post from Notipo and WordPress, then reset its Notion page status. Requires the post ID.
Delete a post from Notipo, WordPress, and reset the Notion page status. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postId | Yes | The post ID to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.4Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "deleted": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "deleted"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate a destructive operation, but the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it specifically names the systems affected (Notipo, WordPress, Notion) and warns irreversibly with 'This cannot be undone.' This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects without contradicting the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences with zero redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical warning about irreversibility is placed immediately after, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive one-parameter operation, the description covers the key context: what is deleted, where, and that it cannot be undone. An output schema exists and the annotations cover the destructive nature, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety posture. Minor details like failure atomicity or required permissions are not mentioned, but that is a small gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the single parameter postId with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so it correctly receives the baseline score for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 post') and precisely identifies the scope: deleting from Notipo, WordPress, and resetting the Notion page status. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling tools, none of which perform deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when a post needs to be deleted, and it is the only deletion-oriented sibling. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring an existing post.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.