Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_delete_resource_group

Delete a MODX resource group by its ID to remove an unneeded group. Provide the group ID to perform the deletion.

Instructions

Delete a resource group by id.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "modx_delete_resource_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, yet it only says 'delete'. It does not disclose whether the deletion is irreversible, what happens to member resources and resource-group access policies, or what permissions are required — the exact facts an agent needs before invoking 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but the terseness leaves no room for any of the behavioral or usage context a destructive operation needs.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and no documented parameters, the definition is materially under-specified. An agent could call it correctly in the mechanical sense but has no basis for judging safety or side effects.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single 'id' parameter is documented nowhere except the phrase 'by id'. That adds the meaning that the id identifies the resource group but omits format expectations and how to obtain the id (e.g. via 'modx_list_resource_groups').

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 and resource ('Delete a resource group') plus the identifying key, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'modx_update_resource_group' or 'modx_get_resource_group', so it stops short of the top band.

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 guidance on when to delete versus updating or reassigning the group, and no mention of prerequisites or the sibling tools ('modx_remove_resource_from_group', 'modx_revoke_resourcegroup_access') that would be safer alternatives. The agent must infer everything from the verb.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools