delete_fileDeletes a file or directory on Ubuntu/Linux servers. Set recursive=true to remove non-empty directories and manage files via MCP.
Delete a file or directory. Set recursive=true to delete non-empty directories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path to delete | |
| recursive | No | Delete recursively (for directories) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds the useful constraint that non-empty directories require recursive=true, but says nothing about irreversibility, permission failures, or error behavior beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the one non-obvious parameter condition. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete whose safety profile is fully carried by annotations and with no output schema to explain, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention irreversibility or error cases, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's mention of recursive=true for non-empty directories adds a little practical meaning beyond the schema's 'Delete recursively (for directories)', but it is essentially a restatement, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('file or directory'), which cleanly separates it from the many read/write siblings such as read_file, write_file, and list_directory. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives one conditional hint (recursive=true for non-empty directories), which is really about parameter usage rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives. It never states when not to use it or names a sibling as an alternative, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.