Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WebCake Storefront MCP

WebCake Storefront MCP

by vuluu2k
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_page

Destructive

Remove an existing storefront page from a WebCake/StoreCake site using its page ID.

Instructions

Delete a page

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page_idYesPage ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.31.8

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - it never states that deletion is irreversible, whether child pages/elements are removed, or what happens to drafts, which is the information an agent would actually need beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single three-word phrase with zero filler is maximally front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise - there is no second sentence earning its place by adding the destructive semantics.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, likely irreversible operation with no output schema and no annotations describing consequences, the description should at minimum warn about permanence and side effects. The safety annotation covers the hint flag, but the operational consequences of calling it are left entirely unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single page_id parameter is documented as "Page ID to delete" in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the ID.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Delete a page" names a specific verb and resource, so the basic purpose is legible, but it offers no scope detail (permanent vs. draft, cascading effects) and does nothing to distinguish itself from the many sibling delete tools such as delete_article, delete_product, or delete_global_section.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what preconditions must hold, or which alternatives exist (e.g., clear_page_draft or delete_global_section). The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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