brewpage-mcp

Delete page data entries

delete_page_data

Destructive

Remove entries from a page's collection by up to 20 docIds or by a time range, with either bound alone, to clean up spam or moderate content. Deleted entries cannot be restored.

Instructions

Delete one entry, or entries in a time range. From one list (collection) of an owned HTML page or site: up to 20 entries by docIds (moderation), or every entry created between after and before, either bound alone is enough (spam cleanup). Deleted entries cannot be restored. Returns the number deleted.

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": {
      "collection": "<collection>"
    },
    "name": "delete_page_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Publication ID
`after`	No	ISO 8601 time: entries created after it
`before`	No	ISO 8601 time: entries created before it
`docIds`	No	Entry ids from the listing, 1-20; instead of a time range
`manageUrl`	No	The page's private management link (https://brewpage.app/manage/...#k=...); stands in for namespace, id and ownerToken.
`namespace`	No	Publication namespace
`collection`	Yes	List (collection) name
`ownerToken`	No	Owner token from create. Default: env BREWPAGE_OWNER_TOKEN (local server only).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.21.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the supplied annotations by stating that deleted entries cannot be restored, that deletion is confined to one collection, that docIds is capped at 20, and that the call returns the number deleted. The irreversibility and return-value disclosure are exactly the context an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the two modes and the consequence. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 an 8-parameter destructive tool this covers the core risks (irreversibility, scope, limits, return value), and the missing return-value detail is moot since the description states the count. The one gap is the credential path — manageUrl standing in for namespace/id/ownerToken is left entirely to the schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: docIds and the time range are described as mutually exclusive selection strategies, and either after or before alone is enough — neither point is stated in the schema. It does not explain the manageUrl vs namespace/id/ownerToken auth alternatives, so it is not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (page data entries) plus the exact scope: one collection of an owned page or site, in two modes. An agent can distinguish this from set_page_data or configure_page_data purely from the description without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly explains the two selection modes and their intent: 'docIds' for moderation (max 20) and 'after'/'before' for spam cleanup, with the important note that either bound alone is sufficient. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating when to use a different tool instead, which keeps it below 5.

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