Delete blog articles from your storefront by providing article IDs. Soft delete removes them from the site, making content disappear without permanent removal.
Delete blog articles (soft delete — they disappear from the site)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Article ID | |
| ids | No | Several article IDs to delete in one call |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.10Input schema / properties / idsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Several article IDs to delete in one call",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "id"
-]v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the soft-delete behavior and the visible effect, which is valuable for a destructive operation. However, it does not mention permissions, recoverability, or side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a delete tool.
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 sentence with no filler. The primary action and the soft-delete nuance are front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds key behavioral context without verbosity.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and soft-delete effect, but it does not mention bulk deletion via 'ids', any constraints on combining parameters, or potential side effects. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is adequate but could provide a bit more operational context.
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% — both 'id' and 'ids' have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 and resource: 'Delete blog articles'. It adds the qualifier 'soft delete' and the effect 'they disappear from the site', making the purpose unambiguous. It clearly targets articles and distinguishes this from other delete tools by resource type.
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 implies usage for deleting blog articles but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Siblings like delete_page and delete_product exist, but no guidance is given on when to choose this tool over them. The context is clear, but explicit routing is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.