mixpost-mcp-server

mixpost_delete_media

Delete a media file from Mixpost by specifying its UUID. This removes the file permanently from your social media library.

Instructions

Delete a media file

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": {
      "mediaUuid": "<mediaUuid>"
    },
    "name": "mixpost_delete_media"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mediaUuid`	Yes	The UUID of the media file to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Delete a media file' without stating that deletion is permanent, whether special permissions are required, or any side effects on related data. This is a significant gap 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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It directly states the action and resource, making it an appropriately concise description for a simple deletion tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core action but lacks contextual details such as irreversibility or impact on referencing entities. The description is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete for an agent making an informed invocation decision.

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?

The input schema fully documents the mediaUuid parameter with a descriptive field. The tool description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 'Delete a media file' clearly identifies the verb ('delete') and resource ('media file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mixpost_update_media, mixpost_get_media, and mixpost_list_media. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the media-related siblings or other delete tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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