mcp-fabric-api

environment_delete

Destructive

Delete a Fabric environment by providing workspace and environment IDs. Removes the specified environment from your workspace.

Instructions

Delete an environment

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": {
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>",
      "environmentId": "<environmentId>"
    },
    "name": "environment_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace ID
`environmentId`	Yes	The environment ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which cover the core danger. The description simply restates 'delete' and adds no context about whether deletion is permanent, cascades to attached resources, or requires special permissions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three words with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is extremely easy to skim, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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?

For a simple two-parameter destructive operation with clear annotations, the description is basically adequate. However, it omits any note about side effects, return behavior, or prerequisites, and there is no output schema to fill those gaps.

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?

Both parameters (workspaceId and environmentId) are fully documented in the schema with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema already carries that burden.

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 the action and target precisely ('Delete an environment'). It is unambiguous against delete tools for other resources, but it does not explicitly differentiate from environment-scoped operations like environment_delete_staging_custom_library or clarify that it removes the entire environment.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus updating an environment, deleting a staging library, or other environment-scoped operations. No prerequisites, dependency, or warning context is provided.

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

Deploy Server