Skip to main content
Glama
murphywuwu

easysociable-mcp

by murphywuwu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Delete image

delete_image
Destructive

Move an image asset to trash for permanent removal. Use only for obsolete or unlicensed images, and prefer archiving if active slides use it to avoid render failures.

Instructions

Move an image asset to trash for permanent removal. Call only when an image is obsolete, copyrighted without license, or marked for permanent deletion. If existing slides still use this image, prefer archive_image to hide it safely without breaking slide renders. Destructive operation requiring explicit user confirmation. May cause slide render failures if imageId is bound to active slides. Returns deletion confirmation record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
imageIdYesThe unique image asset identifier to move to trash.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deletedNoTrue if deletion confirmed.
imageIdNoDeleted image asset ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.17
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "deleted": {
+      "description": "True if deletion confirmed.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "imageId": {
+      "description": "Deleted image asset ID.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.16
    • addedInput schema / properties / imageId / description
      Added value: +"The unique image asset identifier to move to trash."
  3. First observedv0.1.13

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further: it requires explicit user confirmation, warns that active slide bindings may cause render failures, and notes it returns a confirmation record. These are real behavioral consequences beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the guards and risks in descending priority. Every sentence carries information; it is slightly dense but nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, preconditions, the safer alternative, confirmation requirement, and failure risk – everything an agent needs before invoking a destructive single-parameter tool.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema fully documents imageId. The description adds the useful nuance that imageId may be bound to active slides, but this is a consequence rather than parameter syntax, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Move an image asset to trash for permanent removal') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling archive_image, which the agent would otherwise confuse it with. The scope is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('obsolete, copyrighted without license, or marked for permanent deletion') and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition ('If existing slides still use this image, prefer archive_image to hide it safely'). This is textbook routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools