medusa-mcp

Delete collection

delete_collection

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a product collection while keeping its products intact. Use it to remove groupings without deleting items; confirm with the user before proceeding.

Instructions

DELETES a collection (products stay, they just leave the collection). Confirm with the user first.

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": {
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`collection_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the non-cascading effect (products survive, only membership is removed) and mandating user confirmation — both are behavioral facts the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its side effect, then the safety instruction. No filler; the capitalized DELETES signals the destructive nature immediately.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers action, side effect, and confirmation requirement. The only gap is guidance on where collection_id comes from.

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?

Only one parameter (collection_id) is required and its name is self-explanatory, but schema description coverage is 0%, so nothing explains the identifier's source or format. The description implies which collection is targeted but adds no syntax or lookup detail.

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 (collection) and disambiguates the semantics with the parenthetical that products are not deleted, only unlinked — which matters given delete_product and delete_category siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Confirm with the user first" gives an explicit behavioral precondition, which is useful usage guidance. However, there is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no reference to alternative siblings, 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.