Delete an item from a specific collection by providing its ID and collection name. Remove unwanted records to keep your data clean and up-to-date.
Delete an item from a collection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Item ID | |
| collection | Yes | Collection name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related data, what happens if the item does not exist, or any authorization requirements. This is a thin disclosure for a destructive mutation.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the operation in an efficient manner, and the description earns its place without redundancy.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too minimal to fully prepare an agent for the call. It omits side effects, return behavior, error conditions, and any collection-specific semantics, making it incomplete even for a simple delete operation.
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 (collection and id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mapping 'item' and 'collection' to the parameters, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an item from a collection'), clearly matching the required parameters. The noun 'item' implicitly differentiates it from sibling delete tools like baasix_delete_schema, baasix_delete_file, and baasix_delete_relationship, but it does not explicitly name them.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as baasix_delete_schema or baasix_delete_relationship. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent with only the tool's name and generic description to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.