mcp-server-cloudflare

cf_kv_delete

Remove a key-value pair from Cloudflare KV storage by specifying namespace ID and key to manage data efficiently.

Instructions

Delete a key from KV

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": {
      "namespaceId": "<namespaceId>",
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "cf_kv_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`namespaceId`	Yes	KV namespace ID
`key`	Yes	Key to delete
`accountId`	No	Account ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Mar 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., error if key doesn't exist). This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it could benefit from additional context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like permanence, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 all three parameters (namespaceId, key, accountId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'key' is the target for deletion, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a key from KV'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like cf_kv_put (create/update) or cf_kv_get (read), which would require explicit comparison for a score of 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cf_kv_put for updates or cf_kv_get for reads. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing key, or exclusions, such as not being suitable for bulk deletions.

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

Deploy Server