action1-mcp-server

Delete custom Software Repository package

action1_delete_package

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove custom software repository packages by specifying the unique package ID. Use this tool to delete identified packages from the repository via the server.

Instructions

Delete custom Software Repository package. Deletes a custom Software Repository package specified by its ID. Perm: manage_software_repository.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`confirm`	No	Required to execute. Exact string "YES".
`dry_run`	No	Default true (preview). Set false to execute.
`package_id`	Yes	Provide a specific package ID.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`tool`	No
`type`	No
`status`	No
`dry_run`	No
`would_send`	No
`user_message`	No
`developer_message`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed11 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026
- changedInput schema / $schema
```
Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
```
- changedOutput schema / $schema
```
Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
```
- changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / developer_message
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / dry_run
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / id
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / status
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / tool
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / type
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / user_message
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / would_send
```
Added value: +{}
```
First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the required permission, which is genuinely useful context. However, for a destructive operation it says nothing about irreversibility or the dry_run-defaults-to-preview / confirm-required gate, which is the most important behavioral detail here.

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?

The second sentence largely restates the first, adding only the permission note. Front-loaded and short, but one of two sentences is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the risk profile, so the bar is moderate. Still, a destructive deletion tool whose description omits the preview/confirm semantics and any warning about irreversibility leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (org_id, confirm, dry_run, package_id) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'specified by its ID' merely echoes package_id; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (delete a custom Software Repository package), plus the identifier used to target it. It is distinguishable from nearby siblings such as action1_delete_package_version_action and action1_delete_version, but the description never explicitly draws that line, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The only guidance is 'Perm: manage_software_repository.' There is no statement of when to use this versus deleting a version or the package-version action, and no mention of the preview-then-execute flow that governs this destructive tool. An agent gets no routing or precondition help.

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

Deploy Server