rclone-mcp

operations_delete

Delete matching files and directories from a remote path, using filters and config overrides to control the operation.

Instructions

Delete objects in path — Deletes matching files and directories for the provided remote, honouring filters and config overrides.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "operations_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fs`	No	Remote name or path whose contents should be removed.
`_async`	No	Run the command asynchronously. Returns a job id immediately.
`_group`	No	Assign the request to a custom stats group.
`_config`	No	JSON encoded config overrides applied for this call only.
`_filter`	No	JSON encoded filter overrides applied for this call only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions deletion and filter honoring but omits critical details like whether deletion is recursive, permanent, or requires confirmation. The description is too vague 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 a clear front-loaded statement 'Delete objects in path' followed by sufficient elaboration. No extraneous words or repetition.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and 5 parameters, the description is too brief. It does not mention return values (e.g., job ID for async), error behavior, or whether deletion is permanent. For a destructive tool, more completeness is needed.

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 already covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It reinforces that filters and config overrides are honored, but does not explain their behavior or syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to full 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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'objects in path' with specific details about matching files and directories. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like operations_deletefile (single file) and operations_purge (entire directory) by mentioning filters and config overrides.

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 alternatives such as operations_deletefile or operations_purge. It lacks explicit statements about appropriate use cases or conditions.

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

Deploy Server