easysociable-mcp

Delete authoring draft

delete_template_draft

Destructive

Permanently delete a template authoring draft by draftId to discard abandoned work. Requires explicit confirmation since draft data and revisions cannot be recovered.

Instructions

Permanently delete a template authoring draft by draftId. Call only when abandoning a draft that should be permanently destroyed. If the draft is complete and ready for production, call publish_template_draft instead. Destructive operation requiring explicit user confirmation: draft canvas data, layer AST, and unpublished revisions cannot be recovered. Returns deletion confirmation record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draftId`	Yes	The unique draft identifier to permanently delete.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deleted`	No	True if deletion confirmed.
`draftId`	No	Deleted draft ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.17Oct 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "deleted": {
+      "description": "True if deletion confirmed.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "draftId": {
+      "description": "Deleted draft ID.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.16Oct 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / draftId / description
```
Added value: +"The unique draft identifier to permanently delete."
```
Addedv0.1.15Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies exactly what is destroyed ('draft canvas data, layer AST, and unpublished revisions cannot be recovered') and states the auth requirement ('requiring explicit user confirmation'). It doesn't cover rate limits or return record shape, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is strong.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when to use, when-not with alternative, destruction details, and return value. Front-loaded with the operation and resource, then the constraint, then consequences. Zero waste.

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?

Given destructiveHint=true annotations, an output schema already present, and 100% schema coverage for the single parameter, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when/when-not, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, and the return record, leaving nothing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single draftId parameter. The description adds only the confirmation that draftId identifies what is 'permanently deleted', which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for a one-parameter tool.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('permanently delete') and resource ('template authoring draft by draftId'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling publish_template_draft by naming it and describing when to use each. An agent can tell this apart from all other draft tools (get, update, create) without opening any schema.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use ('Call only when abandoning a draft that should be permanently destroyed') and when-not ('If the draft is complete and ready for production, call publish_template_draft instead'), naming the alternative tool by name. Nothing is left to inference.

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