Nettskjema MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_submissions

Destructive

Delete specific form responses by their submission IDs, leaving all other submissions untouched. An empty list is refused to prevent accidental data loss.

Instructions

Delete ONLY the listed responses to a form. Other responses are left alone.

This is the scoped delete, and the one to use whenever specific responses are meant: it removes exactly the submissions whose ids are given, and nothing else. Do not confuse it with delete_all_submissions, which deletes every response the form has and takes no id list. Deleted responses are gone; the API offers no undo for them.

Get submission ids from get_submission_metadata or list_my_submissions. An empty list is refused rather than sent, because what the API would do with an empty body here is not specified and the cost of guessing wrong is a form's data.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`form_id`	Yes	The form's numeric ID.
`submission_ids`	Yes	The ids of the submissions to delete. Must not be empty. These are submission ids, not form ids.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: deletion is irreversible with no undo, only the listed ids are affected, and an empty list is refused rather than sent. This is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core constraint and scoping, and every sentence carries information. The middle paragraph is slightly redundant, restating 'removes exactly the submissions whose ids are given, and nothing else' after the opening sentence already said it, but it is not wasteful overall.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema present, the description covers scope, irreversibility, sibling disambiguation, id sourcing, and the empty-input guard. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning: submission_ids must not be empty, and it points to the tools that supply valid ids. It also reinforces the submission-id vs form-id distinction, though form_id itself is only covered by 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?

States a specific verb (delete) plus resource (submissions/responses to a form) and immediately bounds the scope to 'ONLY the listed responses.' It also names the sibling it must not be confused with (delete_all_submissions), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('whenever specific responses are meant'), when not to (vs delete_all_submissions, which takes no id list), and where the required ids come from (get_submission_metadata or list_my_submissions). It even covers the empty-list edge case and why it exists.

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