Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vish288

mcp-coda

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Coda Delete Page

coda_delete_page
Destructive

Permanently delete a page from a Coda doc. Irreversible: the page and its content are removed, while child pages are reparented to its parent. Verify the name first.

Instructions

Permanently delete a page from a Coda doc.

This is irreversible — the page and all its content will be removed. Child pages are reparented to the deleted page's parent. Verify the page name with coda_get_page before calling this.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doc_idYesThe doc ID containing the page
page_id_or_nameYesPage ID or name to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.4.14

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the operation is irreversible, all page content is removed, and child pages are reparented to the deleted page's parent. That side-effect disclosure exceeds what the annotations 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and irreversibility warning, followed by the side effect and the prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, irreversibility, side effects on child pages, and a verification step. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (doc_id, page_id_or_name) are documented in-schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance for the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Permanently delete a page from a Coda doc'), and the detail about child-page reparenting clarifies it acts on the page node itself rather than its contents, distinguishing it from siblings like coda_delete_page_content.

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?

Provides a clear pre-call prerequisite — 'Verify the page name with coda_get_page before calling this' — naming a sibling tool to use first. It does not explicitly contrast when to use page deletion vs. coda_delete_page_content (delete content but keep the page), so a 5 is not warranted.

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