Delete matching MongoDB documents by filter—remove the first match or all matches when many=true. Requires confirm_all=true for empty filters to prevent accidental bulk deletion.
Delete the first matching document (many=false) or all matching documents (many=true). An empty filter requires confirm_all=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| many | No | ||
| filter | Yes | ||
| database | No | ||
| collation | No | ||
| collection | Yes | ||
| connection | No | ||
| confirm_all | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it explains whether one or all matching documents are deleted and imposes a confirmation guard for empty filters. It does not describe permissions or return behavior, but the core destructive semantics are well disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with the deletion scope and confirmation requirement front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information, with no wasted wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with 7 parameters, required fields, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers only part of the surface. It addresses the destructive scope and confirmation guard, but omits meaning for most parameters and any response behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only explains `many` and `confirm_all` and notes the empty-filter case. It leaves `collection`, `filter`, `database`, `connection`, and `collation` undocumented, which is a substantial gap for 7 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: deleting documents, with the distinction between first matching and all matching documents. That is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like update_documents or drop_collection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives concrete usage guidance for the `many` flag and states that an empty filter requires `confirm_all=true`. It does not name alternatives or explain when to choose another deletion-related tool, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.