Skip to main content
Glama
ni-c

wikijs-mcp

by ni-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete a group

delete_group
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a user group to revoke its permissions while keeping member accounts intact. Provide a confirmation token to finalize.

Instructions

Removes a group. Its members keep their accounts but lose whatever access the group gave them. Requires a confirmation token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idYesNumeric Wiki.js id.
confirm_tokenNoToken from this tool’s previous, unconfirmed call. Omit it to receive one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
truncatedNoPresent only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / group_id / maximum
      Previous value: -9007199254740991New value: +2147483647
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "truncated": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Present only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: members are not deleted, they lose only group-derived access, and the operation requires a confirmation token. This discloses important behavioral and safety-relevant traits not inferable from the annotations alone.

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?

The description is two short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The first sentence states what is removed, the second covers the two most important consequences and prerequisites. There is no redundant or filler content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive two-step operation, the description covers the essential non-obvious facts: account preservation, access loss, and confirmation token requirement. Combined with a complete schema and output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it does not discuss failure conditions or group membership edge cases.

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 the schema already documents group_id and confirm_token, including the token pattern and the omit-to-receive-one behavior. The description adds only a high-level requirement for a confirmation token and does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Removes a group' and immediately distinguishes the impact from user deletion by stating members keep their accounts. This is clear and differentiates delete_group from siblings like delete_user and delete_page.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool through the consequence 'members keep their accounts but lose whatever access the group gave them,' which helps an agent decide if group deletion is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as unassign_user_from_group or update_group, so the routing guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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