Permanently remove a collection and all its records by collection ID. Use when you need to delete a table; this action cannot be undone.
Delete a collection (table) and all its records by id. Irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection_id | Yes | Collection id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the blast radius ('all its records', i.e., cascading data loss) and the irreversibility of the operation, which the annotations do not state.
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, zero filler, with the destructive scope and irreversibility front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter delete with no output schema and annotations covering the safety flags, the description is nearly sufficient. A note on confirmation requirements or whether deletion can be undone via restore would close the remaining gap.
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% with a single documented required parameter (collection_id), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description only restates 'by id' and adds nothing about format or source of the id; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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), resource (collection/table), scope (all its records), and the identifying parameter (by id). It does not distinguish itself from the numerous sibling delete tools (delete_page, delete_product, delete_article, delete_global_section), but the resource is unambiguous.
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 on when to choose this over alternatives such as delete_page or delete_product, and no prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., confirm mode, ownership) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.