Claude File Manager MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete a file or folder

delete_path

Delete a file or folder, sending it to trash for restoration by default. Use recursive=true for non-empty folders and permanent=true for irreversible removal.

Instructions

Deletes a file or folder. By default the item goes to the trash (/app/.mcp/trash) and can be restored via restore_path or undo_last_change. A non-empty folder can only be deleted with recursive=true. The root folder cannot be deleted.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "delete_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	File or folder path
`permanent`	No	Delete permanently, without the trash (irreversible)
`recursive`	No	Delete the folder with all its contents

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses where deleted items go (/app/.mcp/trash), that deletion is recoverable by default, and key edge cases (non-empty folders, root protection). It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens if the path does not exist, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the default recoverable behavior is front-loaded before the edge-case rules, so the agent reads the most important fact first.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers recovery, irreversibility implied by permanent mode, recursion requirements, and a hard safety boundary (root). Error and permission behavior are the remaining gaps.

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; the description earns above baseline by tying recursive=true to the non-empty-folder case, which is a real constraint beyond the schema's generic 'delete with all its contents' text, and by reinforcing the default trash/restore semantics.

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 and resource ('Deletes a file or folder') and immediately names sibling tools (restore_path, undo_last_change) that handle the recovery path, so an agent can distinguish this destructive tool from its restore counterparts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete usage conditions: default trash behavior with recovery options, the recursive=true requirement for non-empty folders, and the prohibition on deleting the root folder. It stops short of explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing, but the constraints are actionable.

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