Vibe Engineering MCP

repo_delete_file

Delete a file from the project workspace by specifying its relative path. Optionally set a custom workspace root to target another directory.

Instructions

Safely deletes a file within the project workspace.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "repo_delete_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filePath`	Yes	Relative path to the file within the repository
`workspaceRoot`	No	Optional custom workspace root directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Safely deletes' is undefined — it does not say whether deletion is reversible, whether a confirmation/backup occurs, what permissions are required, or how a missing file is handled. For a destructive mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a destructive operation — brevity here borders on under-specification.

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?

A destructive file-removal tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to disclose safety semantics and failure behavior, and it does not. The vague 'safely' does not fill that void.

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 both filePath and workspaceRoot are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (deletes) and resource (a file within the project workspace), and the verb distinguishes it from siblings repo_read_file and repo_write_file. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself or name scope limits beyond the workspace.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The agent must infer that this is the destructive counterpart to repo_write_file without any routing help.

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