WebCake Storefront MCP

delete_product_category

Destructive

Delete one or more product categories by ID to clean up a WebCake/StoreCake storefront catalog when categories are outdated or incorrect.

Instructions

Delete one or more product categories by id.

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "delete_product_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	Category ids to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.31.8Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 conveyed structurally. The description adds that multiple ids can be deleted in one call, but omits what happens to products assigned to a deleted category, whether the operation is reversible, or whether partial failures are possible — meaningful gaps for a destructive batch operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single eleven-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. Nothing is wasted, though it is so terse that it also fails to carry usage or behavioral context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and destructive annotations, the essentials are present. What is missing is the domain consequence of deletion (cascade vs. rejection when products reference the category), which an agent would want before calling a destructive tool.

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 'ids' parameter is documented as 'Category ids to delete'. The description's 'by id' phrasing is consistent but adds no format, limit, or ordering detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a clear verb+resource ('Delete ... product categories') and adds scope detail ('one or more', 'by id'), so an agent knows it is a batch delete keyed on category ids. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like delete_product, delete_collection, or delete_blog_category, which is the only gap.

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 versus delete_blog_category or update_product_category, and no mention of prerequisites such as confirming the categories are empty or that deletion is permanent. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server