Delete a BrewPage HTML page, KV entry, JSON collection, or file by providing its type, namespace, ID, and owner token to remove the hosted resource.
Delete a BrewPage resource (HTML page, KV store, JSON collection, or file) using the owner token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID | |
| type | Yes | Resource type to delete | |
| namespace | Yes | Resource namespace | |
| ownerToken | Yes | Owner token received when the resource was created |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the owner-token requirement, which is useful, but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent, whether dependent data (KV entries, JSON collections) is destroyed, what happens if the resource doesn't exist, or what the response looks like. For a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage this 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tightly written sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler.
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?
This is a destructive, four-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should disclose irreversibility, failure modes, and effects on stored data. It covers only what the parameters already imply, leaving an agent under-informed before an irreversible action.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds only that the token is used for authorization and reiterates the resource-type set, which is already visible in the enum.
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 (Delete) and resource (BrewPage resource) and enumerates the four resource types, which map exactly to the `type` enum. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, though the delete operation is naturally distinct from the get/publish/update siblings listed.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no warning about irreversibility, and no note that a mistaken delete cannot be undone. Usage is only implied by the verb in the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.