Raccoon MCP

Delete path

delete_path

Destructive

Remove files or entire directories by path, with optional recursive deletion for folders; use to clean up workspace items through Raccoon MCP.

Instructions

Delete a file or directory recursively.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "delete_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`deviceId`	No
`recursive`	No
`deviceName`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only the word 'recursively', and that claim is misleading since the schema exposes a `recursive` boolean defaulting to false, implying recursion is opt-in rather than automatic. No mention of permanence, protection, or auth needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tightness, leaving the most important details unstated.

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, 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotation-level guidance on irreversibility or permissions, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine device scoping or that recursion is optional from the text alone.

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 description coverage is 0% for 4 parameters (path, deviceId, recursive, deviceName). The description touches on the file/directory distinction and recursion but does not document deviceId, deviceName, or the optional nature of `recursive`, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (file or directory) with a scope qualifier (recursively). It is clearly distinguishable as the destructive-delete operation, though it does not name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fs_write_text, move_file, or copy_file, nor any prerequisites or cautions about when not to use it. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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

Deploy Server